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

[Eric Gerlach <egerlach@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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