Re: spoon-discuss: Judiciary reform draft

[Dan <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

on 12/21/01 5:26 PM, Antonio at zagarna@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> <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

What's an Agent?

> 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

I'm not sure I understand the above sentence

> 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.

Why not just say that the Judge's decision has the force of law?
Then, if the Judge rules that "Player X has 3.14159 points" is true, it is.

> 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

How does somebody become a 'Misbehaving Judge'?

> 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"]]