On Thu, 25 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 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.
Since no one seems to have pointed this out, I suspect judge CuddleBeam's problem was not researching the relevant _rules_, but rather missing the vital _context_ that the real question here is whether the Rulekeepor has been given a Pink Slip.
Since I don't keep every Agora email, I don't recall whether this context was ever noticed in proper arguments, but this _is_ close to a worry I've been having about the new policy by Arbitor ais523 of only making assignments without collecting the arguments for the judge.
Greetings, Ørjan.
---- 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.)
