On Tue, 30 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > On May 30, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > It wasn't clear. But being stuck with a CFJ you don't want is part of the > > job and random draw of being a judge, helping to clear the load. (we > > should definitely have judicial compensation/salaries though). > > I disagree: > > - The lack of granularity encourages not judging at all. > - An uninterested judge often leads to cursory or incorrect judgements -- see > Cuddlebeam's judgement on the Pink Slip case and mine on the Ambiguity case > (sorry!) > - If nobody wishes to judge a case, it probably doesn't matter (which is why > I allow for such cases to be dismissed)
I'm not trying to be snarky here, but would you rather lose a judge or two, or lose the current officers if the tracking becomes too burdensome for them? If the proposal passed as written, I'd personally decide not put the pre-case formatting work, and ais523 has made it clear that e won't. And if you "allow such cases to be dismissed" by the Arbitor, expect a set of meta-CFJs on whether those judgements should have been dismissed. Exactly the opposite of what you want. To take care of the "cursory" case, that's why I suggest allowing a judge to hand it to someone else, or dismiss it fairly quickly. But it should have that first hearing with the judge.
