spoon-discuss: For discussion, before I make it an official revision

["Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre@xxxxxxxx>]

Ye gods, the cause of judicial reform has proved a heavy burden to bear.
Continuing thanks to all for their fine-toothed nit-picking, though -- I
hope the end result will be a more robust and clearly-defined system of
justice.  Note I've replaced all instances of the term "Ruling" with
"Judgement", to make it all more consistent and readable.  Here's the
latest rev--pick away so I can tweak further before subjecting the Admin
to another revision update.

{{
Proposal 236/?
(Author: Scoff!)
My Gavel, Extricated From Your Ass After Complex Reconstructive Surgery

Replace the entirety of rule 155 with the following, or if no rule 155
exists, enact a new rule containing the following (compiled and cobbled
together from research into a handful of handily-archived dead Nomic
games, to which I am gratefully indebted):

[[An earlier proposal may have repealed 155 by the time we get to this
one, in which case it will just be a new rule]]

{{ 
_No Kickbacks_ 

I. Legislative Kickbacks 

No player or other game entity may submit a proposal that 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. 

If a proposal, by adding, changing, or repealing rules, will generate
effects which are based on the way players vote on that proposal, or any
other specific proposal or proposals identified in the proposal, then
those rules generate no effects based on the way players vote on that
particular proposal. 

II. Judicial Kickbacks 

No player or other game entity may submit a CFJ that calls for one or
more effects that discriminate in any way between players based on their
judgement or non-judgement of that CFJ, or of any other specific CFJ.

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 Judgement summarily changed to "Refused" by the creation of a
new revision of the CFJ with the "Refused" Judgement.  All effects of
the prior Judgement on the CFJ will be retracted by the Administrator.
This paragraph will then delete itself from this rule.

III. Cleanup 

After the enactment of all proposals passed in the nweek in which this
proposal was adopted, the following sequence of events will occur, in
numerical order: 

1. If an entity called "Bob the Voting Fish" exists, and the only rule
in the current rule set that refers to "Bob the Voting Fish" is this
one, uncreate the entity called "Bob the Voting Fish". 

2. Section III. will delete itself from this rule. 
}} 

[[We don't need Bob anymore, unless the Cursed Sushi mod passes.  Also,
changed language referring to "invalid" proposals, and added Bean's
suggestion to just explicitly prohibit submission of such proposals.]]

Then modify Rule 126/1, replacing

{{A CFJ cannot be modified once submitted.}}

with

{{Once submitted, a CFJ cannot be modified or revised by the plaintiff.
CFJs can only be revised by a judge's Judgement, an Appeal to Overturn,
or as otherwise explicitly permitted in the rules.}}

[[To make things consistent with the notion of judgements and appeals as
revisions of the original CFJ.]]


Then replace the entire text of 128/2 with:

{{
__Judgement__

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 germane 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.
 
[[completely ripped off from A Nomic]] 

This response constitutes the judge's Judgment on that CFJ and has the
same serial number of the CFJ.  It is incorporated as a new revision of
the CFJ object.

All Judgements are final (except where revision is explicitly permitted
by the rules). 

}}

[[Breaking down the justice stuff into smaller chunks this time, to make
the resulting rule set a bit easier to read.  Also correcting a few
typos, since I'm fiddling with the rule anyway.]]

Then add a new rule:

{{
__Recusal Of Judges__

Should it happen that a Judge has not issued a Judgement on a CFJ
assigned to em within seven days of eir selection for that CFJ, that
Judge shall be recused and a new player shall be selected as Judge for
the CFJ in the ways prescribed by the rules. When a Judge is recused in
this manner, e shall lose 10 points and eir name shall be added to the
List of Misbehaving Judges.
}}

[[More breaking down into smaller chunks, plus a minor clarification
here.  The previous wording could have been interpreted as allowing a
Judge to escape recusal by issuing *any* Judgement within the allotted
time, whether it was on the CFJ assigned to em or not.]]

Then add a new rule:

{{
__Effects Of CFJs__

Calls For Judgement are intended to guide interpretation of the rule
set. 

All Judgements must be in accordance with the rules in effect at the
time of judgement. Where the interpretation of the rules is unclear, or
the rules are silent or inconsistent concerning the issue being judged,
judges may consider judicial precedent, prior & current game custom,
common sense, the spirit of the game, and the best interests of the
game. 

Neither CFJ Statements nor their Judgements have the force of law. CFJ
Statements whose most recent revisions are judged "True" or "False" are
regarded, with their associated Judgements, as explicit statements of
current game custom at the time of judgement.  At no time does a CFJ
Statement, even when judged "True", become or create a rule, or any part
of a rule.  Judgements of "Undecided" or "Refused" and their associated
statements have no force of law or authority as statements of game
custom.

Only the most recent revision of a CFJ Statement and its Judgement is a
potential statement of game custom.

The judge's analysis and any other text apart from the Judgement itself
shall have neither force of law nor authority as statements of game
custom, but will be archived by the administrator as a reference to
judicial precedent for future judges.  Likewise, analysis and other text
submitted with the CFJ by the plaintiff apart from the CFJ Statement
shall have neither force of law nor authority as statements of game
custom, but will be archived by the administrator for reference
purposes.

CFJs must not directly create, alter, or remove rules. CFJs may not
directly protect rules from alteration or removal from the rule set.
However, the indirect effect of the Judgement on a CFJ may require
alterations to the records, rule set or game state, to bring them in
accordance with the Judgement.  These alterations are accomplished by
Judicial Orders.
}}

[[Nothing especially new here from the latest revision, except a lead-in
to the concept of Judicial Orders]]


Then add a new rule:

{{
__Judicial Orders__

Judges may include one or more Judicial Orders with a Judgement.  A
Judicial Order is a statement of action to be completed by the
Administrator to bring the records, rule set, or game state in
accordance with the result of the Judgement on the CFJ.  An Implicit
Judicial Order is a special instance of the Judicial Order, which can
only be created by the Administrator.

Judicial Orders presented with the Judgement will be made based on the
game state at the time of the judgement. [[so if a problem has worked
itself out already, we don't have to fix it twice]]

In the event that the Administrator discovers actions required by the
Judgement on a CFJ that were not specifically prescribed by the Judge in
a Judicial Order, the Administrator shall post a revision of the CFJ to
the public forum, including as an Implicit Judicial Order a description
of the actions required to satisfy the Judgement.  The Administrator
shall then carry out the actions specified in the Implicit Judicial
Order.

In the event of an Appeal to Overturn, the actions of all Judicial
Orders affiliated with the appealed CFJ are suspended, or retracted if
they have already been enacted, until the resolution of the appeal.  If
the Judgement still stands following the appeal, the Judicial Orders are
then carried out by the Administrator.  If the Appeal to Overturn was
successful, the Judicial Orders remain suspended or retracted.

Players may also CFJ a specific action taken in a Judicial Order within
7 ndays of the Administrator's completion of that action.  Judicial
Orders challenged by a CFJ are not automatically retracted or suspended
while judgement is pending, but may be retracted or suspended by the
judgement on that CFJ.
}} 

[[To clarify the process by which the effects of CFJs get implemented,
and provide a mechanism for Appeals to delay the effects of a CFJ
Judgement until the Appeal is resolved.]]

Then add a rule: 

_Judicial Rear View_ 

{{ 
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. 

An Appeal to Overturn is a special instance of a Proposal.  If
limitations on the number of proposals per player per nweek are in
effect, Appeals to Overturn will not count against a player's proposal
limit.  All Appeals to Overturn will have the following one-sentence
structure:  "Player <name of player submitting the appeal> Appeals to
Overturn CFJ #<serial number of CFJ>".  Players may optionally include
analysis in their Appeal to Overturn as Comments, using the standard
delimiters described in Rule 8.

The Appeal to Overturn will be placed on the next available ballot as a
Proposal.  If the Proposal is adopted, the Judgement on the CFJ will be
changed to "Undecided" by creating a new revision of the CFJ with the
"Undecided" Judgement.  When a CFJ Judgement is overturned by an Appeal
to Overturn, all effects of the prior Judgement on that CFJ, and any
Judicial Orders attached to that Judgement, will be retracted to restore
the game state and rule set as if the CFJ had originally been judged
"Undecided". 
}}

[[Modified to avoid allowing players to exploit a potential loophole in
the prior version Appeals to circumvent the bandwidth limitation by
incorporating non-Appeal business in their so-called Appeal proposal.
Appeals must now conform to a strict one-sentence structure, with
optional analysis included as comments.  Also added, per Bean's
suggestion, explicit provision for retracting the effects of an
overturned Judgement.]]