Re: (mooty moot intent) Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3916 Assigned to ais523
On 2021-06-18 08:26, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 2:07 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: On 6/17/2021 5:37 AM, Telna via agora-business wrote: On 2021-06-14 22:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: Do you really have any doubt that a finger pointed at me for failing to respond to the petition wouldn't have succeeded? We'll never know of course. But if I'd defended myself by saying "hey, that wasn't directed at me as PM, it was directed at me as a person" that wouldn't have held any water - the answer would be "you were the PM, you are you, there's no ambiguity, what's the problem?" If I had been the PM, I would have been forced to respond. But since I wasn't the PM, it's somehow retroactively ambiguous? Punished if I am, punished if I'm not. -G. I support the motion to reconsider. I intend to enter the judgement of CFJ 3916 into moot, with 2 support. Reasons: H. Judge ais523 has followed up to my intent to reconsider with some discussion arguments, but I think eir semantic dissections are missing the forest for the trees somewhat. I think this one of the rare cases where a moot/democracy may be a better determinate of resolving the controversy. It is a matter of post-hoc justification for Agora to consider - if I had been PM at the time of the petition and didn't respond, would Agora have considered it a formal petition, and therefore a penalty? When I thought I was PM back in February, and had counterscammers arrayed against me, I had no doubt they would use every tool in their arsenal, including this one. But maybe I'm wrong! Hence, perhaps, a polling moot. -G. I support. This should not be taken as agreement, just a sign that I want this to go to a vote. -Aris I support as well.
Re: (mooty moot intent) Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3916 Assigned to ais523
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 2:07 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/17/2021 5:37 AM, Telna via agora-business wrote: > > On 2021-06-14 22:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > >> Do you really have any doubt that a finger pointed at me for failing to > >> respond to the petition wouldn't have succeeded? We'll never know of > >> course. But if I'd defended myself by saying "hey, that wasn't directed > >> at me as PM, it was directed at me as a person" that wouldn't have held > >> any water - the answer would be "you were the PM, you are you, there's > no > >> ambiguity, what's the problem?" > >> > >> If I had been the PM, I would have been forced to respond. But since I > >> wasn't the PM, it's somehow retroactively ambiguous? Punished if I am, > >> punished if I'm not. > >> > >> -G. > >> > > I support the motion to reconsider. > > I intend to enter the judgement of CFJ 3916 into moot, with 2 support. > > Reasons: > > H. Judge ais523 has followed up to my intent to reconsider with some > discussion arguments, but I think eir semantic dissections are missing the > forest for the trees somewhat. I think this one of the rare cases where a > moot/democracy may be a better determinate of resolving the controversy. > > It is a matter of post-hoc justification for Agora to consider - if I had > been PM at the time of the petition and didn't respond, would Agora have > considered it a formal petition, and therefore a penalty? > > When I thought I was PM back in February, and had counterscammers arrayed > against me, I had no doubt they would use every tool in their arsenal, > including this one. But maybe I'm wrong! Hence, perhaps, a polling moot. > > -G. I support. This should not be taken as agreement, just a sign that I want this to go to a vote. -Aris >
(mooty moot intent) Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3916 Assigned to ais523
On 6/17/2021 5:37 AM, Telna via agora-business wrote: > On 2021-06-14 22:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> Do you really have any doubt that a finger pointed at me for failing to >> respond to the petition wouldn't have succeeded? We'll never know of >> course. But if I'd defended myself by saying "hey, that wasn't directed >> at me as PM, it was directed at me as a person" that wouldn't have held >> any water - the answer would be "you were the PM, you are you, there's no >> ambiguity, what's the problem?" >> >> If I had been the PM, I would have been forced to respond. But since I >> wasn't the PM, it's somehow retroactively ambiguous? Punished if I am, >> punished if I'm not. >> >> -G. >> > I support the motion to reconsider. I intend to enter the judgement of CFJ 3916 into moot, with 2 support. Reasons: H. Judge ais523 has followed up to my intent to reconsider with some discussion arguments, but I think eir semantic dissections are missing the forest for the trees somewhat. I think this one of the rare cases where a moot/democracy may be a better determinate of resolving the controversy. It is a matter of post-hoc justification for Agora to consider - if I had been PM at the time of the petition and didn't respond, would Agora have considered it a formal petition, and therefore a penalty? When I thought I was PM back in February, and had counterscammers arrayed against me, I had no doubt they would use every tool in their arsenal, including this one. But maybe I'm wrong! Hence, perhaps, a polling moot. -G.
