> On Jun 29, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 09:47 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: >> You're misconstruing what e said. E said that eir assignments _did_ >> give everyone a "reasonably equal" opportunity to judge. I any case, >> I object to the finger pointing (not that objecting does anything). I >> further support the intent to enter the judgment into Moot, and do >> so. > > Aris + Cuddlebeam + Publius Scribonius Scholasticus = 3, that's enough. > I was going to say "with all these new players, people have forgotten > that Moots are broken", but it turns out that we fixed them at some > point, so perhaps this will actually work. > > I initiate the Agoran Decision to determine public confidence in the > judgement of CFJ 3534. > > For this decision, the vote collector is the Arbitor, and the valid > options are AFFIRM, REMAND, and REMIT (PRESENT is also a valid vote). > Quorum for this decision is 6.
I vote REMAND. Relying on purely technical artefacts, such as line wrapping, quirks of specific character encodings, and the byte order of the underlying RFC 2822 message, to evaluate a text written in a human language is a deeply worrying precedent to set. Further, CFJ 1460 contains some guidance > I therefore hold that an Agoran player need not regard, nor be required > to act upon, a message written in a language e does not understand, > whether or not it is sent to a public forum. that does not appear to have been applied, nor overturned. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
