spoon-business: Proposal 276 again...

[Jonathan David Amery <jdamery@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

{{
Revise Rule 126 to read:

{{
__Call For Inquiry__

If a player has any question or complaint regarding the rules or how
they are (or have been) applied, e may issue a Call For Inquiry (CFI,
or for antique [[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, should they wish, an
arguement. 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 Admin as Defendant for that CFI. 

CFIs are given a serial number as if they were an object that can be
revised. Once submitted a CFI can only be modified by:

 a) Otherwise allowed Admin action.
 b) The Plaintiff rescinding the CFI.

A CFI may, at any point between its submittance and its judgement, be
"rescinded" by the plaintiff by posting eir intention to do so in a
public forum. If this occurs, the CFJ no longer requires judgement and
shall not affect the state of the game in any other fashion. If the
plaintiff rescinds their CFJ, e may not then resubmit the same CFJ in
another form. If a player believes that this has occurred, e may
submit a CFJ on those grounds. If a plaintiff rescinds eir CFJ, e
loses 1d3 points. 
}}

Revise Rule 127 to read:
{{
__Judges__

When a Call for Inquiry has been made, the Admin shall randomly select
one player among the allowed players to be the Judge. Allowed players
for the purpose of this rule are all players excepting the Defendant,
the Plaintiff and players on the LMJ. If that leaves no players
allowed to be the Judge, then out of the players on the LMJ, the
player who was placed on the LMJ first shall be the Judge.

In the event of a CFI naming the Admin as defendant, the duty of
randomly selecting an Judge shall fall to the player with the highest
Score. That player will also not be allowed 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,
with by an Argument:

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 Argument of the Judgement is the reasoning that the Judge used to
arrive at the Judgement, and must be a direct rendition of the
rules. A Judge may not make a Judgement which contridicts one
or more rules, e may however refer to precedent, game custom, and the
spirit of the game in making eir Argument. [[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 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
CFI. When a Judge is recused in this manner, e shall lose 10 points
and, if the LMJ exists, eir name shall be added to it.  
}}

Divide the points gained by Wild Card as a result of this proposal
equally between Bean, Scoff! and Wild Card.

}}