On 5/16/2020 1:24 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > So if this current case isn't IRRELEVANT, for reasons of being directly > and trivially answerable from a past CFJ, then that triviality clause is > pretty meaningless. In terms of R217 tests concerning the definition of > "trivial" in this context, under the judicial fairness doctrine mentioned > earlier, nerfing IRRELEVANT that much would against Agoran custom, would > directly devalue past judgements, and would not be fair to the Arbitor nor > to the rest of Agora, thus not for the good of the game. > > I find IRRELEVANT. >
There's something I missed writing above, which I may self-file to add. Whenever a CFJ judgement trivially follows from a past CFJ, there are generally two appropriate options: (1) "this is trivially [the same judgement as before] because of [past CFJ]" or (2) "this is IRRELEVANT because of the past CFJ". I was going to add that the judge could use the totality of CFJ circumstances to decide between those two options. E.g. if the past CFJ was simply unknown to the caller, option (1) is better, because it puts the answer to the statement up front, and no one has to dig to the past CFJ to find the answer. But if the second CFJ is an attempt to game the system in some way (i.e. to specifically set up a conflicting opinion or win the game or something) then option (2) may be preferred due to all of those "good of the game" arguments.
