However, since we judge CFJs "at the time of" the CFJ call, I think it *might*
be
reasonable to say: "I DISMISS this CFJ because pending events means the issue
is
not ripe, or evidence could not be found, or it is not appropriate to resolve
this
controversy via CFJ.". As long as it's accompanied with Judge's Arguments
about how
a later CFJ or other process might be better to resolve the issue.
If you look at Rule 217:
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any rule change that
would (1) prevent a person from initiating a formal process to
resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable expectation
that the controversy will thereby be resolved;
This does not state that the "formal process" *has* to be a CFJ. For example, a
CoE/Response is another formal process. So it's quite possible for a Judge to
say
"don't use the courts, or don't use the courts *yet*, do it this way instead.
As long as the method the judge recommends offers a reasonable expectation of
resolution.
I'm saying this just as an idea - it's not one we've used generally, but it's an
interesting concept from real world courts that we might think about.
On Thu, 25 May 2017, Nicholas Evans wrote:
> I think you misunderstand Agoran CFJs. The reasoning is more important than
> the ruling. The purpose to judge DISMISS is to indicate that the judgement
> doesn't answer any gamestate questions. Ideally, and in most such
> recent cases, the text of the judgement still provides guidance on what to do
> if the case becomes relevant in the future.
> This is also much of how common law courts work. 'Precedent' refers to the
> reasoning employee by judges more than the specific judgements.
>
> On May 25, 2017 07:20, "CuddleBeam" <cuddleb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I'm still a trainee-Judge of a sort and I wasn't aware of that
> tradition, so I'll Support that Motion to Reconsider and do a better job and
> avoid committing that same error again in the future.
>
> As for removing myself, I believe I am extremely appropriate for certain
> flavors of CFJ. I wish there was a way I could be assigned mostly those
> specifically.
>
> More notably, that Ambiguity CFJ, which a lot of people didn't want to deal
> with and play the DISMISS card on it to dodge the issue when there was
> perfectly valid, (although quibble-worthy) way to deal with it
> properly. Although I find myself to be in a minority to be motivated to deal
> with such offbeat CFJs, which is why I believed myself to be a great addition
> to the pool, because more CFJs could be dealt with and not
> DISMISSED whenever it felt uncomfortable or deviant.
>
>
>
