DISMISS should never be used because you are uncomfortable. It is completely fine, we all make mistakes.
---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote: > I support the motion to reconsider. > > Gaelan > > On May 25, 2017, at 4:37 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > I hereby file a Motion to Reconsider with 2 Support. > > We actually do expect a judge to do further "scholarly" (if you like) > research into the rules to make their decisions with. If you are unwilling > to do such, you should remove yourself from the list of judges. > > ---- > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:29 AM, CuddleBeam <cuddleb...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > >> The following between diamond symbols is my Judgement on CFJ 3509 for the >> statement “Any player may take the office of Rulekeepor with 2 support.” >> >> ♦ >> >> DISMISSED. I lack enough evidence unfortunately. I wish I did know myself >> though. >> >> >> >> Casual reading of the rules doesn’t suggest to me anything that would >> support your claim (I see a way to resign, to kick them off the seat >> without 2 objections, and elections, but nothing more), although there >> could entirely be a more obscure method via the which it definitely could >> be formally achieved, e.g. a scam. I just don’t see it nor have the >> explicit knowledge granted by evidence to know it. Judging FALSE would mean >> that “Any player may NOT take the office of Rulekeepor with 2 support” is >> TRUE, but I don’t have any conclusive evidence for that either. I could >> attempt to dig deeper, but that would tread into the territory of needing >> more than a “reasonable amount of time” to grant judgement. So dismissed. >> >> ♦ >> >> >> >> I apologize if the Judgement is disappointing but my level of >> understanding of the rules is casual and non-scholarly and I don't believe >> I am required or should be expected to have further knowledge than that, >> because my ability to judge is based on my ability to assess and interpret >> evidence, not my individual prior knowledge. (That or perhaps we should >> require Judges to have achieved a certain Agoran Education Degree or have >> achieved scam-based awards, would I be incorrect in my assumption.) >> > >
