Create a rule as follows:
{{
_No Judicial Kickbacks_
At the time this proposal is enacted,
if 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. Finally, this
paragraph will 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).
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, 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.
}}
Then modify Rule 128/2, replacing the
text
{{A Judge's decision shall have the force of law.}}
with the following text:
{{
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 where revision is
explicitly permitted by the
rules). Eir revised rulings are
created as a new revision of the CFJ object with the new ruling
applied.
Calls For Judgement are intended to
guide interpretation of the ruleset. All judgements must be in accordance
with the rules in effect at the time of judgement. Where the
interpretation of the rules is unclear, or the rules are silent or inconsistent
concerning the issue being judged, judges may consider judicial precedent, prior
game custom, common sense, the spirit of the game, and the best interests of the
game.
CFJ Statements do not have the force
of law. CFJ Statements whose most recent revisions are ruled "True" or
"False" are regarded, with their associated rulings, as explicit statements of
current game custom at the time of the
ruling. At no time does a CFJ Statement, even when ruled "True",
become or create a rule. Rulings of "Undecided" or "Refused" and their
associated statements have no force of law or custom. Only the most recent
revision number of a CFJ statement is a potential statement of game custom.
The judge's analysis and any other
text apart from the ruling itself shall have neither force of law nor authority
as statements of game custom, but will be archived by the administrator as a
reference to judicial precedent for future judges.
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.
CFJs must not directly create, alter,
or remove rules. CFJs may not directly protect rules from alteration or
removal from the ruleset. However, the indirect effect of the ruling on a
CFJ may require alterations to the rule set or game state, to bring them in
accordance with the judgement.
}}
Then add a rule:
_Judicial Rear View_
{{
At any time within 7 ndays following
the posting of a Judgement of "True" or "False" on a CFJ, any player may propose
that the Judgement be overruled by posting an Appeal to Overturn in a public
forum. If limitations on the number of proposals per nweek are in effect,
Appeals to Overturn will not count against a player's proposal limit. The
Appeal to Overturn will be placed on the next available ballot as a
proposal. If the proposal is adopted, the ruling on the CFJ will be
changed to "Undecided" by creating a new revision of the CFJ with the
"Undecided" ruling.
}}
I change my name to "Uncle Psychosis". Indeed. (I
don't imagine this will require any more work for the admin, assuming he
doesn't apply the previous change before he sees this one).
uin.
DISCLAIMER:
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the
intended recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information
which is privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning
of applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised
that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
contact the sender of this message as soon as possible.
The views or opinions expressed in this message
are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup
Limited
> _Judicial Rear View_
I
think this would establish the (potentially somewhat dangerous, as has been
pointed out) precedent that CFJs remain true until reviewed. I'd be much
happier with simply adding something along the lines of "A CFJ shall be judged
based upon whether its statement was true at the time it was submitted.",
instead of the whole review process (except for appeals, which are a Good
Thing).
uin.
DISCLAIMER:
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the
intended recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information
which is privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning
of applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised
that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
contact the sender of this message as soon as possible.
The views or opinions expressed in this message
are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup
Limited