On 2/26/2020 7:16 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > >> On Feb 26, 2020, at 6:13 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business >> <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> >> AGAINST. These should not become part of precedent but should change/be >> removed with a change in officer, OR make it clear that an administrative >> opinion is only a part of precedent as long as that officer holds the >> position. Otherwise this constrains future officers or requires repeat >> CFJs whenever a new officer wants to change the policy. Also, between >> callers, barred parties, and busy judges, adding less flexibility to >> judicial assignments makes the job challenging > > You’re thinking of an earlier proposal of mine (which was NttPF, oops). This > one doesn’t constrain assignment, but instead creates a parallel mechanism > for resolving CFJs. Not sure if that changes your mind.
No I read this one carefully before commenting. It's better than the previous one, but I still don't think it's quite there yet on procedure or interpretation. I really think (as I've said a few times) that memoranda should be tracked by an officer as part of an officer's report, and judges should have a strong bias towards accepting the current officer's memoranda as being "current game custom" for R217 purposes, but that it doesn't otherwise affect the judicial system. -G.
