spoon-discuss: Judiciary reform draft

[Antonio <zagarna@xxxxxxxxx>]

Resubmitted, as my previous attempt was eaten up somewhere in the bowels of
my computer.

This set of proposals is an attemt to reform the judiciary sistem of B
nomic 
Any suggestion will be ponderd.

let's begin:

Currently we have 4 rules about CFJs : 
Rule 126 defines CFJs to exist (if in a somewhat shaky way), defines the
plaintiff and defendant and sets CFJs as non-revisable objects.
Rule 127 defines the selection of judges
Rule 128 basically defines responses to CFJs (true false or refused) but
fails to provide an effect.
Rule 129 is the infamous statute of limitation

What i'll try to do in the following proposals is rip off what can be used
from the old A nomic ruleset and try to integrate it with our current game.

so:

<proposal>
<title>Judicial reform 1</title>

Replace the text of rule 126 with the following LEGULEIO delimited text
LEGULEIO
Any player may submit a Call For Judgement (CFJ) by posting his intention
to a public list together with a Statement to be judged and optionally an
analyisis. That Agent 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.
Calls for Judgement is given a serial number as if it were a revisable
object. A CFJ cannot be modified once submitted.
LEGULEIO
</proposal>

***

<proposal>
<title>Judicial Reform 2</title>
Replace the text of rule 128 with the following GIUDICATO delimited text

GIUDICATO
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
The Judge may then at his discretion apply changes to the gamestate to
bring it in accordance with his Judgement.
GIUDICATO
[[the last sentence is the only real change, and it probably gives too much
power to the judge, however i cant think of a good way to check the bounds
of that power, suggestions ?]]
</proposal>

***

<proposal>
<title>Judicial Reform 3 or crime and punishment</title>

create a new rule named "Misbehaving Judges" with the following CATTIVONE
delimited text
CATTIVONE
the List of Misbehaving Judges (LMJ) is a list of players.
A player is removed from the LMJ two nweeks after he entered it.
CATTIVONE

replace the text of rule 127/0 with the following NELLALISTA delimited text
NELLALISTA
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.
NELLALISTA
</proposal>

[[I also wanted to propose something for Appeal, but then one can simply
resubmit the CFJ or issue a CFJ on the CFJ ecc. Then again it would be nice
to include an explicit "Request For Reconsideration"]]

--
Rivoluzione:
  \o_  (o      __)   ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o  \o   |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |   ( \ /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com