what is the point of contention that is actually being resolved here?

Larry mentioned in a comment to “Dud Deliberation” that he thought Split Concerns should have worked as is.

Cov   until I better understand what this CfJ is trying to do.  Is it alleging that Split Concerns should have worked or trying to re-apply the effects of Split Concerns?

I read Larry’s comment as they want to make Split Concerns work, not that they feel it should’ve worked.

I think Larry thinks it should have worked, but his grounds are wrong.

But I think the flavor text here implies this is to apply the changes of Split Concerns, since it didn’t work, and I’m for that.

A CfJ should be to resolve a dispute. If you think the rule is good but the CfJ is wrong, file another proposal to fix instead of abusing CfJs

Clucky.

“If two or more Scribes actively disagree as to the interpretation of the Ruleset, or if a Scribe feels that an aspect of the game needs urgent attention, then any Scribe may raise a Call for Judgement (abbreviated CfJ) by posting an entry in the “Call for Judgement” category.”

Qwertyu63 clearly seems to think this requires urgent attention.

If Calls for Judgement were only for dispute resolution, and anything else was “abuse”, how could we fairly, say, fix the game if Proposals were unambiguously illegal to make? (That’s happened before, although maybe not unambiguously.) Because it’s unambiguous, there would be no dispute, so you would think a Call for Judgement would be improper, in that situation; but they’re clearly meant to be how we resolve such things? And have been used as such.

They’re how we deal with a Mad King Anthony.

The rules disagree with you, and I’m sure if we polled most players they’d disagree, too.

I understand that precedent and majority opinion, uncodified in the rules, ought to have zero weight in debates like this,

But the rules disagree with you, too!

This is not a matter that needs urgent attention

That’s a subjective, and it’s not for you to decide; as long as one Scribe thought this was a matter that required urgent attention, it was legal to make. (And, considering that it was effecting a pending Proposal, ideally before it resolved, it totally required urgent attention.)

This isn’t an abuse of CfJs, so don’t vote against it for that reason; if you have another reason to vote against, go ahead, but, come on.

*affecting a pending Proposal (or its results), ideally before it resolved,

It is for me to decide. I’m the one voting.

This is content I feel should’ve been submitted via proposal and using a CfJ to submit it violates the spirit of CfJs, so I’m voting against.

  per Clucky.

I think it would have worked as a proposal but I don’t think this hurts anything