On 11/3/25 19:17, Mischief via agora-business wrote: > On 11/3/25 3:04 PM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-official wrote: >> With 3 support (from Janet, Automaticat, Trigon and 4st), I enter the >> judgement of CFJ 4125 into Moot. >> >> I initiate an Agoran Decision to determine public confidence in the >> judgement of CFJ 4125. The Vote Collector is the Arbitor (me), the valid >> options are AFFIRM, REMAND and REMIT, the voting method is first-past- >> the-post, and quorum is 3. >> >> CFJ 4125 was called by snail and reads: "snail tabled an intent in the >> above quoted message." >> >> It was judged FALSE by EarlyRetirement in this message: >> >> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2025-October/054739.html >> >> A vote of AFFIRM (or FAILED QUORUM) will restore the original verdict. >> A vote of REMAND will reopen the case for EarlyRetirement to reissue a >> verdict. >> A vote of REMIT will reopen the case and recuse EarlyRetirement, >> requiring me to assign a new judge. > I vote AFFIRM. Rule 1728 doesn't except even de minimus obfuscation. (I > think it probably should, but that's not the current text.) >
As I understand it, the argument from most of the "REMAND" voters (including me) is not that the outcome is wrong, but that the reasoning should be more explicit about the standard it's setting out and whether it's overturning and/or clarifying CFJ 3747. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor
