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

[Eric Gerlach <egerlach@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 05:08 PM 2002-01-10 -0600, you wrote:
> Ye gods, the cause of judicial reform has proved a heavy burden to bear.

Well, one problem seems to be that you have to put it all in one proposal 
due to the bandwidth limit.  Until we find a good way around that, I'm 
willing to help by volunteering my proposals to help split this up.

> {{
> Proposal 236/?
> (Author: Scoff!)
> My Gavel, Extricated From Your Ass After Complex Reconstructive Surgery
>
> {{
> _No Kickbacks_
> <rule text snipped>

I like this rule now.

> 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.}}

<nitpick>If this gets split up, I'd remove the part referring specifically 
to the Appeal to Overturn... as the Appeal to Overturn rule will explicitly 
permit modification of a CFJ anyways, and the text as it is could lead to 
loopholes</nitpick>

> Then replace the entire text of 128/2 with:
>
> {{
> __Judgement__
>
> <text of rule snipped>

I like.


> 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.
> }}

<nitpick>Might want to replace "days" with "ndays", just for 
consistancy.</nitpick>


> Then add a new rule:
>
> {{
> __Effects Of CFJs__
>
> <snip>
>
> 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.

I think I said this already, but I believe that this paragraph is 
redundant. Escpecially considering its similarity to this paragraph:

> <snip>
> 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.

... which I think is the more substantial one.

> <snip>
> Then add a new rule:
>
> {{
> __Judicial Orders__
>
> <snip>

This rule is good methinks, but this paragraph:

> 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.

Should be in the Appeal to Overturn rule, not the Judicial Orders rule. 
(Which it already is)

> <snip>
> Then add a rule:
>
> _Judicial Rear View_

I believe this rule is okay as well.

Well, I think the biggest problem with this is the size.  However, if it 
were to be split up, I think a great many parts would pass.  Like I said, 
I'm willing to help with that if you run out of proposals (or don't want to 
waste them all on this cause).  My first suggestion would be splitting it 
into three parts: (No Kickbacks), (Judgement, Recusal of Judges, Effects of 
CFJs, Judicial Orders), and (Judicial Rear View).

Well, that's all for now.

Bean, out.