Oh sure - no worries if that’s the only thing - I was giving my logic so it didn’t come across as arbitrary, but didn’t mean to imply it was anything but my best (conjectural) guess at this time.
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 9:51 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Easy, you could state that you're basing yourself off mere conjecture and > that's the best you can do for now rather than using using language that > states your position as a matter of fact. > > On Friday, May 12, 2023, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 8:59 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion > > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > I'd like to mention that I don't feel like you're exercising the > "highest > > > reasonably possible standard of care" if your basis for if the crime > has > > > been committed or not is that it doesn't match the arcana, unless you > > prove > > > first that the arcana has survived and still has legal effect to this > > day. > > > Or at least, give it a shot to convince people about it, because it > seems > > > clear to me that the arcana's survival and legal power is just > > speculation > > > at the moment. > > > > I can still perform the investigation if a crime exists, so I'm not > > closing out any arguments whatsoever. This "care" only matters if I > > don't get a CFJ answer in time, and the CFJ finds "crime" after the > > "Favoritism" deadline passes a week from now. > > > > So a question to you: if an investigator, with good and honest intent > > doesn't believe that a crime has been committed, and the 1-week > > Favoritism deadline for the investigation is approaching with the CFJ > > unresolved, how exactly do you think I (or anyone) should exert care > > in that circumstance, to avoid the charge of Favoritism? What > > can/should any investigator do to follow their belief with integrity > > while at the same time not committing a crime of late investigation? > > > > This is not a question unique to this crime - it applies to any > > alleged infraction where the investigator has a reasonably legit > > reason to believe "no crime" but there's still some controversy over > > it and a cfj is raised. I believe that (within the 1-week deadline) > > the investigator stating eir belief (and arguments for that belief) > > provides evidence of a level of care, and that it's unavoidable to do > > otherwise due to eir conscience. Otherwise they'd have to act against > > their belief and conscience in a criminal matter *just in case* it was > > a crime, which isn't a reasonable request. How (in your opinion) > > should the investigator go about it, when the investigation might only > > exist (in essence) retroactively and a CFJ answer is late in coming? > > > > -G. > > >
