comex wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Speaking personally, I moved to REASSIGN 1651, not just because the
>> judge lacked understanding, but because this lack appeared to be so
>> severe that I believed e would continue to lack understanding even if
>> the issue were explained more carefully; in other words, I disbelieved
>> "that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement if given
>> a new opportunity". I do not disbelieve this wrt Wooble and 1937.
>
> You know, I really never understood what was so bad about Quazie's
> judgement of CFJ 1651. Compared to Murphy's unappealed judgement it
> had the same outcome; the former had half a sentence of arguments
> leading up to that outcome, which isn't exactly amazing, but the
> latter had *none*, considering that it started with "The statement is
> straightforwardly true." Murphy's judgement had an example and a side
> comment, while Quazie's had a different side comment.
>
> Sure, one of Zefram's treatises might have been preferable to Quazie's
> arguments, but I don't think either set of arguments for the case
> actually addressed the issue at hand (whether the validity of the
> initiation of an Agoran decision can change retroactively). Yet one
> was described as "largely incoherent" while the other was allowed to
> stand.
>
> No offense to any of the referenced judges.
My argument (particularly the example given) explicitly addressed the
second half of the statement:
...then the notice's description of the class of eligible voters
was necessarily insufficient to enable public agreement on which
persons are eligible.
Quazie's argument did not address this portion of the statement at all,
but rather addressed whether the list is changeable under the condition
hypothesized by the first half of the statement.
What I didn't do (I would have supported REMAND if this had been
pointed out at the time; at this point, legislation would be
appropriate) was offer a general interpretation of Rule 107 (b)'s
"sufficient to enable public agreement on which persons are eligible"
in a variety of situations:
* Eligible voters are identified by class ("active players") or
explicit list ("ais523, avpx, ... and Zefram") or both
* Each form of identification is correct or incorrect
* Each form of identification is disputed or undisputed
