Difference between revisions of "Verdict:AfeDfiAjb9afEdf9ajBi/3"
From cm2.liecourt.com
(Edited with WSForm) |
(Edited with WSForm) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Verdict | {{Verdict | ||
| + | |Role=Juror | ||
| + | |Workflow=Workflow/160 | ||
|Case ID=AfeDfiAjb9afEdf9ajBi | |Case ID=AfeDfiAjb9afEdf9ajBi | ||
| − | | | + | |User=User:Isophist |
| − | | | + | |Truth=no |
| − | | | + | |Truth percentage=75 |
| − | | | + | |Truth text=Unless the rationale for the criteria are clearly explained it is difficult to understand how such a decision to keep an oil company on an ESG list but drop an EV car maker. |
| + | |Whole truth=no | ||
| + | |Whole truth percentage=90 | ||
| + | |Whole truth text=Depends on the context. The truth according to S&P or the "real" truth? | ||
| + | |Nothing But the truth=no | ||
| + | |Nothing But the truth percentage=100 | ||
| + | |Nothing But the truth text=- | ||
| + | |Deceit=That sustainability is a clearly defined idea with broad agreement. Without that clarity it is easy to state that Exxon's actions are more sustainable than Tesla's. | ||
| + | |Deceit percentage=100 | ||
| + | |Deceit text= | ||
| + | |Deceit intended=yes | ||
| + | |Motivation=Helping big oil companies | ||
| + | |Motivation percentage=95 | ||
| + | |Motivation text=- | ||
| + | |Social acceptability=Unacceptable | ||
| + | |Social acceptability percentage=100 | ||
| + | |Social acceptability text=it is pushing the world deeper and deeper in the climate change problem because a few people want to make more money | ||
| + | |Label=This is an unfair list | ||
| + | |Label percentage=100 | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 16:14, 8 June 2022
Not permitted
