On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:44 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
<agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> Yes, but wouldn't certain CfJs be likely to enter into Moot Tennis if we
> don't take the opinion of the majority as a tiebreaker as Judges? We can
> keep going back and forth with Moots, because 2+N Support seems fairly easy
> to pull off.
>
> How is the Moot Tennis supposed to end?
If a Moot ends up being really close/split, the best thing is to fix
it by voting on legislation (a proposal) that clarifies it absolutely
one way or the other. Including possibly by-proposal saying that
ais523 wins even if the "clarification" goes in the opposite way
overall. Of course, if the clarification has to be made in an power
2+ rule, you could get a situation whether neither side can pass a
clarification in their direction. So far, we've managed to eke out a
compromise in the rare rare times that has happened.
-G.
> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:32 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On 5/22/23 15:25, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > > CfJ 3890 puts it into nicer words ("Where there is no obvious way to
> > solve
> > > a given problem, judges are free to apply their own life experience
> > > (...)"), but seems to line up with what I had to end up with, simply
> > > applying my own personal opinion.
> > >
> > > But also, yes, I agree that it's not explicit; but I hope that my reasons
> > > for approaching judging in that way seems sensible. Maybe it could become
> > > customary if enough people tend to resort to justifying themselves in
> > that
> > > way. I think that the opinion of the consensus at the time, even if it
> > > doesn't align with my personal opinion, is a better basis for delivering
> > > judgement than just, well, my personal opinion. Especially when Rule 911
> > > and Moots exist.
> >
> >
> > If judges always or often judge based on what the majority wants, a lot
> > of the point of a judiciary separate from the proposal system is
> > diminished. If a judge fully and truly believes the outcome of a case is
> > the opposite of what the majority wants (after hearing all the
> > arguments), then, in my view, they should judge that way. If they can
> > make a convincing argument then all is well, and if they can't then the
> > majority has motions and moots to deal with it.
> >
> > If the majority is wrong, let them be wrong, but make them work for it.
> >
> > --
> > Janet Cobb
> >
> > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> >
> >
