On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2017-06-21 at 08:43 -0500, grok (caleb vines) wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.u > > k> wrote: > > > (Also relevant, the gratuitous arguments by grok to agora- > > > discussion: > > > <http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg363 > > > 47.html>) > > > > ooh, do I need to TTttPF gratuitous arguments into BUS? Since they > > aren't codified in the ruleset I didn't think about it. > > They used to be. I'm not sure they are nowadays, though. > > Nonetheless, if you send something to DIS, that implies that you don't > necessarily want people to act on it. So it's easy for officers, > judges, and the like, to miss.
"Official" gratuitous arguments have less impact on the initial judgement than they used to, now that the Arbitor doesn't assemble case logs before assigning cases, so each individual Judge has to go looking for them even if they're posted in BUS (slightly unfortunate, but better to have cases assigned in a timely manner IMO). For the database, after the case, I filter on Public archives only, and include well-labelled gratuitous arguments when I see them. I tend to search on the Statement text and CFJ#, so replies/threads not including the statement or CFJ# are more easily missed.
