It’d be interesting to hear the H. Arbitor’s opinion on this. IMO, officers should use this mechanism iff it’s a substantially new interpretation, so that we have a log of what we’ve decided about how new rules work, instead of having to find the threads where we figured it out last time.
Gaelan > On Feb 12, 2020, at 10:32 PM, James Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 07:34, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I submit this proposal: { >> Title: Calls with Memoranda >> AI: 2 >> Co-authors: Aris, G, Alexis >> >> Create a new Power-2 rule titled “Administrative Opinions”: { >> An officer may publish an Administrative Opinion for a judicial case, >> specifying a valid judgement for that case. Officers SHOULD only assign >> Administrative Opinions to cases with which eir office is primarily >> concerned. The Arbitor SHOULD record Administrative Opinions along with case >> judgements. An officer who has published an Administrative Opinion for an >> unassigned case may, without objection, Administratively Close a case, >> causing em to become the judge for the case and eir Administrative Opinion >> to become the judgment for the case. The Arbitor SHOULD NOT assign a judge >> to a case while proceedings to Administratively Close it are ongoing. >> } >> } >> >> [This is intended to be used in two ways: >> 1) As a mechanism for officers to record uncontroversial rulings as they >> come up: If someone does something weird, the officer can call the CFJ, >> issue an Opinion, and move to Administratively Close in the same message. In >> this case, this basically is a memorandum that gets recorded in the CFJ log. > > When something weird happens that relates to my office, I normally > just say what I think happened without calling a CFJ unless someone > disagrees. Is it better to call a CFJs even if there's no controversy? > > I wonder if the CFJ logs could get cluttered if people get too > enthusiastic about this mechanism. > >> 2) As a mechanism to uncontroversially resolve CFJs initiated by someone >> else. > > I like the way your proposal accomplishes this. > > - Falsifian
