I think it's a horrible idea. We need more clear decisions and precedents, not more wishy-washy weaseling. If the Magistrates disagree, then they need to hash it out in private, and post a single unified decision. The *last* thing we need is to set up some kind of minority, or dissenting opinion that contradicts or disagrees with the verdict, and allows those involved some way to consider even a losing position to be the correct one. We don't even need some kind of alternate interpretation of why the decision was correct, but the reasoning wrong. That's just more weaseling and rationalization.
Come to a decision, write the verdict, and be done with it.
You're going to get a verdict, but since I'm the one who will write it, it's going to be largely my opinion. It will be posted for the other Magistrates to review before it winds up here, so if there's any major disagreement it will come out then and the verdict can be modified before it's finalized, but in all honesty it will probably reflect my views more than anyone else's. I doubt the other Magistrates are going to have lengthy objections for me to take into account.
