Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Voadam" data-source="post: 9128370" data-attributes="member: 2209">As someone who spent a 20-year career as an environmental law legal analyst I am pained by the conflation of the arbitrary and capricious standard and fairness. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />What follow is a technical critique of using the arbitrary and capricious standard to make your fairness point, not whether fairness is key to DM calls.Getting a ruling wrong by RAW but that is a fair call at the table is fine for a DM and encouraged by the RAW as a type of rule 0 in most every edition of D&amp;D. Violating unambiguous statutory requirements, even if the results or reasons are just and fair, is the easiest way to establish an agency action was arbitrary and capricious and violates the Administrative Procedure Act.Rational basis review focuses on if there is an arguably rational basis based on the written requirement for a decision, not whether it is a fair interpretation or result. It is very rare for a decision to come down to whether or not the decision is so ridiculously unfair as to be irrational even though a rational link can be seen consistent with the requirements.Fairness would generally be an equitable factor, such as when deciding on injunctive relief. Arbitrary and capricious would be more an analogy to DMs generally having a lot of lattitude RAW for judgment calls, they are the DM, the books say what they say goes. DMing is different though in that DMs have the latitude RAW to violate the RAW. Administrative agencies must follow the enacted laws for their decisions to survive arbitrary and capricious standard review, even if they feel a different action would be better at the moment or in general.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Voadam, post: 9128370, member: 2209"] As someone who spent a 20-year career as an environmental law legal analyst I am pained by the conflation of the arbitrary and capricious standard and fairness. :) What follow is a technical critique of using the arbitrary and capricious standard to make your fairness point, not whether fairness is key to DM calls. Getting a ruling wrong by RAW but that is a fair call at the table is fine for a DM and encouraged by the RAW as a type of rule 0 in most every edition of D&D. Violating unambiguous statutory requirements, even if the results or reasons are just and fair, is the easiest way to establish an agency action was arbitrary and capricious and violates the Administrative Procedure Act. Rational basis review focuses on if there is an arguably rational basis based on the written requirement for a decision, not whether it is a fair interpretation or result. It is very rare for a decision to come down to whether or not the decision is so ridiculously unfair as to be irrational even though a rational link can be seen consistent with the requirements. Fairness would generally be an equitable factor, such as when deciding on injunctive relief. Arbitrary and capricious would be more an analogy to DMs generally having a lot of lattitude RAW for judgment calls, they are the DM, the books say what they say goes. DMing is different though in that DMs have the latitude RAW to violate the RAW. Administrative agencies must follow the enacted laws for their decisions to survive arbitrary and capricious standard review, even if they feel a different action would be better at the moment or in general. [/QUOTE]

Verification