Eric Gerlach on 10 Jan 2002 01:18:01 -0000


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

spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The most-revised proposal ever: 236 again


At 02:31 PM 2002-01-09 -0600, you wrote:
OK, let's try this.

And well done. I personally like this much better than the previous revisions, and you have sucessfully stopped me from making my own Justice System Revision proposal. :)

However, I couldn't help noticing a coulple of things...

 <snip>

I. Legislative Kickbacks

A proposal is invalid if it calls for one or more effects that
discriminate in any way between players based on their voting actions on
that proposal, or any other specific proposal or proposals identified in
the proposal.

<nitpick>However, nothing says that players cannot make invalid proposals. My personal sense on this would be to say that "A player may not make a proposal which calls for ..." or "A proposal shall not call for...", but that's just me. A CFJ would likely straighten this bit out anywho.</nitpick> Sorry 'bout that.

<snip>

At the time of the passage of this proposal, any CFJ judged in the past
10 ndays that called for one or more effects that discriminate in any
way between players based on their judgement or non-judgement of that
CFJ, or any other specific CFJ or proposal identified in the CFJ, shall
have its ruling summarily changed to "Refused".  This paragraph will
then delete itself from this rule.

Hate to point this out... but I think this paragraph violates rule 204/0...

<more snippage>

{{
At any time within 7 ndays following the posting of a Judgement of
"True" or "False" on a CFJ, any player may propose that the Judgement be
overruled by posting an Appeal to Overturn in a public forum.  If
limitations on the number of proposals per nweek are in effect, Appeals
to Overturn will not count against a player's proposal limit.  The
Appeal to Overturn will be placed on the next available ballot as a
proposal.  If the proposal is adopted, the ruling on the CFJ will be
changed to "Undecided" by creating a new revision of the CFJ with the
"Undecided" ruling.
}}

Hmmm.... what happens to "Undecided" rulings? I guess you could just resubmit the CFJ if you wanted a new ruling that badly. You should probably add a statement to the effect of overturning any "indirect effect[s] of the ruling on a CFJ [which required] alterations to the rule set or game state, to bring them in accordance with the judgement". Otherwise, if there were any auxilliary effects, they're stuck! And an nweek might pass in the appeal time, making another CFJ impossible.

Well, that's all my ideas for the Justice System.... now it's time to fix up the Temporal Dept...

Cheers,

Bean