Eric Gerlach on 20 Jan 2002 23:22:51 -0000


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

spoon-business: Last minute revision


Phew... made it back in time to sneak in a revision. Dave, I'm going to interpret your:

And thanks for not making me re-type the whole darn
proosal. :)

as a sign that you want me to make revisions with full-text so that they may be cut and pasted. If I am interpreting this badly, forgive and correct me. And now I shall continue in that vein:

Revise Proposal 276 to read:

{{

__We Can Only See Shadows On The Wall__

If proposal 275 passed and received more affirmative votes than this proposal, this proposal does nothing.

Otherwise, the following actions are taken:

Revise Rule 128 to read:

{{
__Call For Inquiry__

If a player has any question or complaint regarding the rules or their application, e may issue a Call For Inquiry (CFI, or for historical [[and Roman]] reference, CFJ).

A CFI may be issued by any player by posting eir intention to a public forum together with a Statement in question and optionally an analyisis. That Player shall be known as the Plaintiff with regard to the CFI. While submitting CFI the Plaintiff may also specify a player or the Administrator as Defendant for that CFI.

CFIs are given a serial number as if they were a revisable object. A CFI cannot be modified once submitted.
}}

Revise Rule 127 to read:
{{
__Judges__

When a Call for Inquiry has been made, the Administrator shall randomly select one player among the eligible players to be the Judge. Eligble players for the purpose of this rule are all players excepting the Defendant, the Plaintiff and players in the List of Misbehaving Judges. If that leaves no players eligible to be the Judge, then out of the players on the List of Misbehaving Judges, the player who was placed on the List of Misbehaving Judges first shall be the Judge.

In the event of a CFI naming the Administrator as defendant, the duty of randomly selecting an Judge shall fall to the player with the highest Score. That player will also be ineligible to be a Judge for the CFI.
}}

Revise Rule 128 to read:
{{
__Judgement__

A Judge shall, within seven days of eir selection, give one of the following responses to the Call for Inquiry to which e was assigned, accompanied by an Analysis:

1. Refused: A Judge may refuse to hear the CFI if it lacks a clear Statement or is not germain to the game.
2. True: The Statement is true.
3. False: The Statement is false.
4. Undecided: It could not be determined at the time the CFI was made whether the Statement is true or false.
[[not quite completly ripped off from A Nomic]]

This response constitutes the Judge's Judgement on that CFI and has the same serial number of the CFI.

The Analysis of the Judgement is the reasoning that the Judge used to arrive at the Judgement, and must be a direct interpretation of the rules. A Judge may not make a Judgement which is contradictory to one or more rules, e may however refer to precedent, game custom, and the spirit of the game in making eir Analysis. [[A ruling against one or more rules results in another Call For Inquiry, or we need an appealate court]]

Should it happen that a Judge has not issued a Resolution within seven days of eir selection, that Judge shall be recused and a new player shall be selected in the ways prescribed by the rules as Judge for the CFI. When a Judge is recused in this manner, e shall lose 10 points and, if a rule entitled "Misbehaving Judges" exists, eir name shall be added to the List of Misbehaving Judges.
}}

After points have been awarded to Bean for the passage of this proposal, transfer one third (rounded up) of the aforementioned points to Scoff!. [[ Scoff! initally took on the role of Judicial Reformer... I'm just trying to give it my own twist ]] Transfer 2 points from Bean to Uncle Psychosis. [[ A tip of the hat for the title :) ]]
}}

}}

Bean