On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> And you'd better believe I expect R101 protections (e.g. silence=refusal). > > Perhaps you'd have to give evidence that you agree to the panelist > who's performing the action. But not publicly-- even a bona fide > contract can be made in secret.
Hmm, I think we're at cross-purposes and we're agreeing more than you think! You're confusing what has to appear in public in the first place versus what evidence is required if questions arise. 1. If a panel member posts a judgement, and claims that the other two panel members privately agreed, it should be *assumed* valid even if no evidence exists in the fora. I am *absolutely* with you on this point. Nothing wrong with private agreement. 2. Same as #1, but another panel member claims "hey, I never consented." Then evidence would have to be produced. If the evidence is confusing (e.g. it looks like partial permission, etc) then the judge could decide which side was right. Same if a discussion happened in ag-dis that came to some vague statement of support that wasn't quite consent. Fake mail of course is always a problem here and just something the judge will have to deal with to current standards of limited email forensics. 3. If there is *no* evidence (e.g. the agreement was verbal, and it comes down to "e said" "no but e said...") then the judge should err on the side of *no* agreement being made, due to R101. This is also important if one panel member claims that another member "agreed verbally before going on vacation" and that other panel member's not around to confirm/deny. This is also what happened in CFJ 1908 (I mean, you may have been in agreement, you just never said so and so the judge said you didn't agree). This is the only point on which we differ, I suspect. -Goethe
