On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > Just as a note, I think 2895 was a Trial on something unrelated, and scshunt > supplied gratuitous arguments for 2897, while accidentally calling them > arguments for 2895. And those arguments got stuck with 2895 in the log. So > currently, the 2895 log has arguments about Subject that should actually go > with 2897. > > Does that look right to you? - I can fix in the database... > > Getting back to the Murphy's original question, CFJ 2897 references CFJ > 2777, which is the one we were looking for (I think!), and then 2897 backs > it up with more arguments.
Ah, yeah, that makes more sense. But 2897 goes further than backing it up; it changes the standard from "subject line matters if referenced in the body" to "subject line and body are equally significant". ...off-topic: I wonder if ais523 still takes the position (as e wrote in 2897) that CFJ judgements are generally "fraught with danger" of "getting the wrong result", i.e. disregarding the meta-rule of deferring to judge's interpretations where reasonable. Or maybe it's a real rule, the "past judgements" clause of Rule 217, but that depends on your interpretation of "past". After all, CFJs are usually about actions taken prior to the CFJ, so their eventual judgements were not "past judgements" at the time of the actions. But is it the time of the actions that matters, or any time I go investigate whether a past action succeeded? If the latter, if Rule 217 was amended since the action was taken, should I use the old or new version? If the former, should it say "past and future judgements"? Is that implied by "game custom"? Does it even make sense?
