spoon-business: Moderation among the justice reform

[Eric Gerlach <egerlach@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Okay everyone, I'm getting the feeling that there are two distinct camps 
among the justice reformers.  As I see it, those are:

a) Players may do whatever they want, things that have happened have 
happened and cannot be reversed.
b) Players may attempt to do whatever they want, but an action which is 
against the rules is not allowed to occur.

So, since this is a game of voting, I'm going to do the democratic thing 
and see which of both camps is preferred.  Since we have no form of 
referendum... I'm going to do the next best thing by making two proposals, 
one for each side of the debate.  I'm formulating these to the best of my 
ability, and if there are problems with the one you'd rather support, let 
me know and I'll do what I can to fix it.

(These are very much first versions... long way to go... hope to make 1+ 
revisions daily.... comment!  Comment lots!  Be criticizing!  But please be 
constructive in your criticism!)

====================================================================================================
Proposal #1:
{{
__You Break the Law, You Pay the Price__

Revise Rule 10 to read:

{{
__Follow The Rules__

All game entities, except Players, must always abide by all the Rules then 
in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect.  Players may make 
actions which are against the rules, however these actions are known as 
Illegal.  This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules.

}}

[[ This must be done to get over the "mass-hallucination" effect. ]]

Revise Rule 126 to read:

{{
__Calls For Judgement__

If a player performs an Illegal action, or if there is any question or 
ambiguity regarding the rules or the state of the game, any player may 
submit a Call For Judgement (CFJ) by posting his intention to an public 
forum together with a Statement to be judged and optionally an analyisis. 
That Player shall be known as the Plaintiff with regard to the CFJ.

While submitting CFJ the Plaintiff may also specify a player as Defendant 
for that CFJ.  If the CFJ concerns an Illegal action, the Plaintiff must 
specify a Defendant, and the Defendant must be the player who performed the 
Illegal action.

Calls for Judgement are given a serial number as if they were a revisable 
object. A CFJ cannot be modified once submitted.

If at any time a player deems an Administrative action invalid, believes an 
Administrative action has altered the ruleset or gamestate in a manner 
inconsistent with the rules, or suspects the Administrator of unfairness, 
nepotism, or cheating in a given action, eir remedy is to submit a Call For 
Judgement.

}}

Revise Rule 127 to read:
{{
__Judges__

When a Call for Judgement 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 but the defendant, the 
plaintiff and players in the List of Misbehaving Judges. If that leaves no 
players eligible to be the judge, all players are eligible.

If the Administrator has been named as the Defendant in a CFJ, e may not 
select a judge.  Instead, that duty falls to the player with the highest Score.
}}

[[ The only reason I'm doing this is to move the paragraph about Judge 
selection from Rule 126 to the judge selection rule... it's spring cleaning. ]]

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 Judgment 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 germain 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.
[[completly ripped off from A Nomic]]

This response constitutes the judge's Judgment on that CFJ and has the same 
serial number of the CFJ.

With a Judgement a judge may issue Judicial Orders.  Only Judicial Orders 
explicitly permitted by the rules may be issued.  The Administrator must 
carry out all Judicial Orders in a judgement.

If the CFJ concerns a matter of correctness of the rules or game state, a 
Judge may issue a minimum number of Judicial Orders required to bring the 
rules or game state to their correct representation. [[If a player believes 
a judge oversteps eir bounds, well, it was an Illegal action.]]

If the CFJ concerns an Illegal action, the judge may issue a Judicial Order 
deducting a number of points from eir score no greater than 100. [[This is 
vague unpurpose... I'm not going to write an entire criminal code.]]

Should it happen that a Judge has not issued a Judgement 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 CFJ. 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.
}}

Revise the first paragraph of Rule 129 to read:
"No Calls for Judgement shall be made regarding any Illegal actions that 
have happened more than one nweek ago.  Such actions shall always be 
treated as if they had been legal."

Revise Rule 1 to read:
{{
__The Game__

The name of this game shall be 'B Nomic.'

If the proposal which most recently modified this rule passed, transfer one 
third (rounded up) of the points gained by its proponent for its passage to 
Scoff!. Then delete this paragraph from the rules.
}}

[[ Scoff! initally took on the role of Judicial Reformer... I'm just trying 
to give it my own twist ]]

}}

====================================================================================================

There.  That proposal makes a system very close to the Judicial systems in 
most major nations.  Note there is no appealate court... I'm keeping this 
small.

Now, I'm going to make a proposal for justice reform that fits more tightly 
within our current Nomic game (i.e., doesn't modify Rule 10).  I've tried 
to steer clear of any terminology that involves "Judge" to differentiate 
this from any current civil justice system.  Don't know if that's better or 
worse... opinions?

====================================================================================================
Proposal #2:
{{
__Thou Shalt Never Go Against The Rules!__

Revise Rule 128 to read:
{{
__Call For Inquiry__

If a player believes that any action taken by any entity was against the 
rules, or that the recorded or assumed game state (including but not 
limited to revisable objects, entities including eir attributes, and 
players and eir attributes) is not in accordance with the actual game state 
as prescribed by the rules, 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 Inquirer 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:
{{
__Aribters__

When a Call for Inquiry has been made, the Administrator shall randomly 
select one player among the eligible players to be the Arbiter.  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 Arbiter, 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 Arbiter.

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

Revise Rule 128 to read:
{{
__Inquiry Resolution__

An Arbiter 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 Interpretation:

1. Refused: An Arbiter may refuse to hear the Request 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 cannot be determined at the time of the Resolution whether 
the Statement is true or false.
[[completly ripped off from A Nomic]]

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

The Interpretation of the Resolution is the reasoning that the Arbiter used 
to arrive at the Resolution, and must be a direct interpretation of the 
rules.  An Arbiter may not make a Resolution which is contradictory to one 
or more rules. [[This either results in another Call For Inquiry, or we 
need an appealate court]]

If the Resolution is "True", and the recorded game state is not in 
accordance with the Statement, then the Adminstrator must correct the 
recorded game state so that it reflects the Statement.  An Arbiter may 
recommend a possible way to do this as part of eir Resolution.

Should it happen that an Arbiter has not issued a Resolution within seven 
days of eir selection, that Arbiter shall be recused and a new player shall 
be selected in the ways prescribed by the rules as Arbiter for the CFI. 
When an Arbiter 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.
}}

Revise Rule 1 to read:
{{
__The Game__

The name of this game shall be 'B Nomic.'

If the proposal which most recently modified this rule passed, transfer one 
third (rounded up) of the points gained by its proponent for its passage to 
Scoff!. Then delete this paragraph from the rules.
}}

[[ Scoff! initally took on the role of Judicial Reformer... I'm just trying 
to give it my own twist ]]

}}

There is more cleaning up to do with the second proposal if the temrinology 
is acceptable.  Otherwise I'll just revert it to "Judge"-whatever.

====================================================================================================

Now, I'm not trying to make one proposal better than the other.  So if you 
see problems with either of these (other than fundamental philosophical 
ones) let me know, and I'll fit it in.  My ultimate hope is that these 
proposals merge into one through debate that all can love!

One revision I will make to these proposals (depending on how they are 
numbered) will be to make sure only ONE of them passes, the one with the 
greatest number of YES votes.

I'm going to make my argument for the second proposal on spoon-discuss in 
the morning.  Scoff!, I hope I'm not stepping too far into your 
jurisdiction.  You'll note I left the appeals court open on both of them 
for you :)

Well, that's enough proposalling for tonight.... time to go to -

.......... zzzzz ...............

Bean