On 5/19/2020 4:54 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I hereby initiate an Agoran Decision to determine public confidence in CFJ > 3831's current judgement of FALSE, delivered by Alexis on 26 Apr 2020 > (that is, a Moot).
I resolve this Moot as follows: BALLOTS REMIT: Jason, Aris, R. Lee REMAND: Publius, Falsifian PRESENT: nch[0], Trigon [0]nch voted endorse G., but G. didn't vote. Quorum of 5 is met (7 voters), the outcome is REMIT. Alexis is recused from CFJ 3831 and the case is now open. As there weren't any real instructions to the next judge as to why this was mooted, I offer the following gratuitous arguments for the case: As per CFJ 1500, even if a term was very recently defined under the rules, it falls back to its common definition as soon as the term is removed from the rules: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1500 Now, in eir arguments for this case, Judge Alexis uses the argument that "if [kudos] had been a term like XP (i.e. undefined in the rules), it would fail." However, this argument does not consider the common definitions of such terms (i.e. under R217). For example, for "XP", a common-language analysis might say either "XP has no common definition or meaning, thus fails" or "XP, in a gaming context, refers to 'Experience Points', which makes no sense in this context so fails." So for "XP" Alexis's arguments seems correct. But only following a common-language analysis of the questionable term. In the actual situation, the term used was "kudo/kudos". The dictionary definition of the term is "praise and honor received for an achievement". Given that this dictionary definition of kudos matches the term "honor", the judge should analyze whether or not this word substitution, when included in the otherwise correct "Notice of Honour" format, is enough of a synonym for "karma" (as defined in the rules) to function correctly.
