Antonio on 25 Dec 2001 23:28:43 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

spoon-discuss: Judiciary Reform, version 2b

On Tue, 25 Dec 2001 14:33:37 +0100, Antonio <zagarna@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

i amend my proposal Judicial reform 1 
<title>Judicial reform 1</title>

Replace the text of rule 126 with the following LEGULEIO delimited text
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 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.
Calls for Judgement are given a serial number as if they were a revisable
object. A CFJ cannot be modified once submitted.

[[thanks Dan for pointing that out]]

To support absentee judges I also amend Judicial reform 2:

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

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
A Judge's decision shall have the force of law.

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 

  \o_  (o      __)   ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o  \o   |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |   ( \ /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free address at