spoon-business: Revision of 236/1 _My Gavel Up Your Ass_

["Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre@xxxxxxxx>]

Analysis:  This closes up the loophole Glotmorf so kindly pointed out,
along with a few other tweaks.  This is long, so here's a brief summary
of what I'm on about:

Part 1 - Designed to specifically prohibit graft, kickbacks, and
generally dishonest judicial behavior.  A judicial companion to the
excellent No Kickbacks rule.

Part 2 - Clear up the notion of CFJs having the force of law.  I think
this strikes a decent balance between the notion that CFJs should have
some legal potency, and the fact that according them too much potency
opens up the floodgates for Glotmorf's loophole.  Precedence of rules
over CFJs is established.

Part 3 - Establish a process for judicial review, so we can clean up
CFJs that have been rendered obsolete by developments in the rules, or
whose context has changed significantly.


Proposal _My Gavel Up Your Ass_

Create a rule as follows:

{{
_No Judicial Kickbacks_

If at the time this proposal is enacted, there exists a game entity
known as Mike Judge, the Administrator shall replace all instances of
the quote-delimited phrase "Mike Judge" in this rule with a uniquely
identifying name provided by the player Scoff!  If the Administrator
believes the new name would substantially alter the effect of this rule
in ways other than changing the name of the entity created, the
Administrator may select a name of eir own choosing.  This paragraph
will then delete itself from this rule.

There exists an entity known as Mike Judge.  Mike Judge is a non-player
entity.  

No Call For Judgement may know the identity of the player judging it.
Any Call For Judgement which attempts to identify the player judging it
will see that identity as Mike Judge.  Any Call For Judgement which
rewards or penalizes the player judging it will dispense those rewards
or penalties to Mike Judge.  The judge assigned to the ruling shall
remain the player assigned by the Administrator.

No Call For Judgement (hereafter referred to as CFJ) may know how the
judge of that CFJ ruled.  Any CFJ that attempts to determine how its
judge ruled will see that ruling as "My gavel up your ass.  Huh-huh.  I
said 'Ass'."  The actual ruling on the CFJ shall remain the ruling given
by the player assigned to judge it.

No Call For Judgement may include a statement which refers specifically
to the judge assigned to judge that CFJ, or the judge specifically
assigned to judge any other specific CFJ (where specific CFJ means any
qualification that could refer only to one CFJ.  In other words, the CFJ
need not be referenced by serial number, as long as a unique
specification is given).  In addition, no CFJ may include a statement
which refers to the CFJs submitted by a specific player as a class.

Any CFJ statement which refers specifically to the judge assigned to
judge that CFJ, or the judge specifically assigned to judge any other
specific CFJ, as well as any CFJ statement which refers to the CFJs
submitted by a specific player as a class, must be judged "Refused" or
"Undecided", else the ruling judge will be added permanently to the List
of Misbehaving Judges, and may not be removed from the List of
Misbehaving Judges except in the event of a Win.  This rule supersedes
rule 209.

At the time of the passage of this proposal, any CFJ judged in the past
10 ndays that referred specifically to the judge assigned to judge that
CFJ, or the judge specifically assigned to judge any other specific CFJ,
will have its ruling summarily changed to REFUSED.  This paragraph will
then delete itself from this rule.  The following paragraph is inactive
until this paragraph is deleted.

No ruling on a CFJ may be changed except by the judge assigned to rule
on that CFJ, or by a Call For Judicial Review.  No rule may directly
alter or revise the ruling on a CFJ or specific class of CFJs.  Judges
may revise their ruling within one nday of the first posting of that
ruling in a public forum, after which time all rulings are final (except
in the case of a Call For Judicial Review).
}}

Then modify Rule 128/2, replacing the text
{{A Judge's decision shall have the force of law.}}

with the following text:

{{
CFJ Statements whose most recent revision is judged "TRUE" shall have
the force of law.  However, CFJ statements may not alter the letter of
the law by altering, deleting, or replacing the text of any rule.  Any
CFJ statement which alters the letter of the law, or asserts that the
current text of a rule is other than the text in effect at the time of
ruling on the CFJ, shall have no effect on the text of the ruleset, even
in the event of a "TRUE" ruling on that CFJ.

In any event of conflict between the rules and a CFJ statement, the
rules shall in all circumstances supersede a CFJ statement, including
CFJ statements which directly claim to supersede this or any other rule.
All rules supersede all CFJ statements, regardless of their respective
serial numbers.

The judge's analysis and any other text associated with a judge's ruling
shall not have the force of law, but will be archived by the
administrator as a reference to judicial precedent for future judges.
}}

Then add a rule:

_Judicial Rear View_

{{
If at any time a player believes that changes to the rules have
invalidated the prior ruling on a Call For Judgement (hereafter CFJ)
statement, that player may post a Call For Judicial Review in a public
forum.  The Call For Judicial Review (hereafter CFJR) must name the
serial number of the CFJ to be reviewed, and the player requesting the
CFJR.

The player who originally judged the statement, even if playing under a
different name, shall be assigned to review the statement and issue a
new ruling under current law.  If the original judge is On Leave or no
longer an active player, the Administrator shall select a new judge in
the same manner prescribed in rule 127 for selection of judges for Calls
For Judgement, with the additional stipulation that the player issuing
the CFJR is not eligible to judge.

The Judge shall, within seven days of eir selection, give one of the
following responses to the Call for Judicial Review to which e was
assigned, accompanied by analysis: 

1. Refused: A Judge may refuse to hear the Request if it lacks a clear
Statement or is not germane to the game. 
2. True: The Statement is true. 
3. False: The Statement is false. 
4. Undecided: It cannot be determined at the time of the Judgment
whether the Statement is true or false.
The Judge's ruling shall be created as a new revision of the original
CFJ, under the same serial number.  Only the most recent revision number
of a CFJ statement may have the force of law, and then only as
specifically prescribed by the rules.   Judges may revise their ruling
on the CFJR within one nday of the first posting of that ruling in a
public forum, after which time all rulings are final.
}}


--Scoff!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Come on let's leave our misery
And crawl toward where we want to be
Can't we try?  Can't we try?
  --Yo La Tengo, "Night Falls On Hoboken"