On Fri, 2017-07-07 at 20:52 -0400, omd wrote: > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk > > wrote: > > omd: unresolvable conditional, default PRESENT > > [note: omd's conditional depends on the correctness of the > > judgement; given that the judgement reasoning is being remanded, > > there's no Agoran-legal reason to conclude any particular > > correctness for it. A vote can be conditional on the outcome of the > > vote – at the risk of circularity if the vote is close – but the > > conditional didn't clearly state how to react to a REMAND outcome.] > > So you're saying the correct interpretation of the rules can't be > "reasonably determined (without circularity or paradox) from > information reasonably available"? If so, how do you intend to judge > the case on remand? :P
The correct interpretation of the rules is (or at least should be) based on the verdict of the CFJ; indeed, the whole point of the appeal was that people disagreed with me about it. As such, the state of Agoran knowledge as of the resolution of the Moot doesn't contain a reasonably determinable statement as to the correct interpretation of the rules. Judging the CFJ can help to determine the rules (although it's possible it'll get appealed again), but asking officers to effectively judge a CFJ every time they resolve a conditional vote is clearly not reasonable. -- ais523
