Index ← 3875 CFJ 3876 3877 → text
===============================  CFJ 3876  ===============================

      Jason is not an interested judge.


Caller:                        Gaelan

Judge:                         G.
Judgement:                     FALSE



Called by Gaelan:                                 30 Jul 2020 18:46:23
Assigned to G.:                                   30 Jul 2020 19:58:57
Judged FALSE by G.:                               30 Jul 2020 19:58:57


Caller's Evidence:

Proposal 7899 (Oct 2017) appended the following to rule 991 (calls for 

      The Arbitor's weekly report includes a summary of recent
      judicial case activity, including open and recently-judged
      cases, recent judicial assignments, and a list of players
      interested in judging.

That text is still there, unchanged, in the current 991/33.

Rule 2125/12 reads (in part):
An action is regulated by a body of law if […] (3) it would, as part of
its effect, modify information for which some person bound by that body of
law is required, by that body of law, to be a recordkeepor.

If a body of law regulates an action, then to the extent that doing so is
within its scope, that body of law prevents the action from being performed
except as described within it, including by limiting the methods to perform 
that action to those specified within it. […]

Caller's Arguments:

“Recordkeepor” is defined by the rules only in the context of assets, but
it seems fairly obvious to parse this as “information… for which some
person bound by that body of law is required to include in eir report.” 
Therefore, becoming interested in judging is a regulated action.
Therefore, one can only become an interested judge except as described by
the rules, which provide no mechanism to do so. Jason registered in Jun
2019, after Oct 2017 when interested judgeship became a regulated action. 
Therefore, there is no way ey could have become a interested judge.


Judge G.'s Arguments:

First, note that this doesn't affect judicial assignments. By Rule 991,
the Arbitor CAN assign to any "eligible" judges (which are defined in that
rule and unrelated to "interest").  So if there are no interested judges,
the SHALL requirement for judicial assignments is trivially satisfied.  In
fact, it's satisfied if the Arbitor specifically refuses to assign to any
interested judges (0 for everyone is equal).

Second, the judgement CFJ 3740 included an extensive history and analysis
of the term "recordkeepor" and came to the following conclusion:

> "Recordkeepor" in R2125 refers strictly to instances where the term is
> used in the rules, and any records cascading from that explicit use.
> Currently, this only applies to the R2166 definition cited by the
> caller, but also the "Ribbons" that cascades recordkeeping to Ribbon
> switches in general (duplicating the "tracked by" lanugage for
> switches in R2162).


Holding with that precedent, "interested in judging" is not regulated due
to having a recordkeepor, and can be determined by a common-sense
application of the common defininition of the term.  E.g. by initially
expressing interest to the Arbitor, and being removed either by their own
professed lack of interest, or if their failure to judge without
explanation shows that they lack interest.

Jason expressed interest in judging when e was an eligible judge, and has
produced regular and timely judgements including on eir most recent
assignment (judgement delivered 21-July), so e was clearly interested in
judging at the time of this CFJ.

I judge FALSE.