The "investigator", "investigation" names are pretty misleading. Maybe it could be reworded to something like "umpire", "assignation", etc?
I might draft something later On Sunday, May 14, 2023, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < [email protected]> wrote: > On 5/13/23 15:47, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > > Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-05-12 18:51]: > >> In Agora, the rules are clear. The clock starts running when the > >> infraction actually occurred, not when it was discovered or reasonably > >> could have been discovered. > > I'd argue this is a problem. If the investigation is to determine if > there > > was an infraction, we couldn't possibly start counting from “when the > > infraction actually occurred”. We should instead count it from the > > moment the *alledged* infraction occurred. > > > > If there is doubt whether there was an infraction, a CFJ must be called > > and the deadline should be postponed (i.e., the Investigator can resolve > > the pointed infraction by deferring to a CFJ). > > > > There's some serious issues with Rule 2478. > > > An investigation explicitly does not involve determining whether an > infraction occurred. Only an actual, non-forgiven infraction can be > investigated. > > Rule 2478 functions, though it does result in there being no duty for an > investigator to respond to a purported noting of a non-infraction. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >
