spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Moderation among the justice reform

["Doig, Gavin" <GDoig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[pragmatist version (i.e., bad and wrong one)]

> If the CFJ concerns a matter of correctness of the rules or game state, a 
> Judge may issue a minimum number of Judicial Orders required to bring the 
> rules or game state to their correct representation. [[If a player
believes 
> a judge oversteps eir bounds, well, it was an Illegal action.]]
>
This is broken. Judicial orders: 1 - create a rule allowing me dictatorial
powers, and 2 - repeal the CFJ rules. Illegal? Perhaps. Fixable? Not really.


[Platonist version (i.e., good and right one)]

> If a player believes that any action taken by any entity was against the 
> rules, or that the recorded or assumed game state (including but not 
> limited to revisable objects, entities including eir attributes, and 
> players and eir attributes) is not in accordance with the actual game
state 
> as prescribed by the rules, e may issue a Call For Inquiry (CFI, or for 
> historical [[and Roman]] reference, CFJ).
>
"If a player has any question or complaint regarding the rules or their
application, e may...".
Simpler, more general, still covers game state (which is (the result of) the
application of the rules).

> 2. True: The Statement is true.
> 3. False: The Statement is false.
> 4. Undecided: It cannot be determined at the time of the Resolution
whether 
> the Statement is true or false.
>
Not "at the time of the Resolution". "It cannot be determined whether the
statement was true or false at the time of its submission." (if a proosal
fixing something passes in the meantime, it'd be good to still have the
precedent set as to the actual situation). And that should apply to all the
verdicts, not just "undecided".

> The Interpretation of the Resolution is the reasoning that the Arbiter
used 
> to arrive at the Resolution, and must be a direct interpretation of the 
> rules.
>
"...interpreted according to currently existing game custom and precedent."

> If the Resolution is "True", and the recorded game state is not in 
> accordance with the Statement, then the Adminstrator must correct the 
> recorded game state so that it reflects the Statement.  An Arbiter may 
> recommend a possible way to do this as part of eir Resolution.
>
I still think this is ugly and unnecessary, and that it would be better to
leave all the "recorded game state" stuff out. But I don't think it's
harmful or broken, so I'll still vote for the proosal with it in.

> There is more cleaning up to do with the second proposal if the
temrinology 
> is acceptable.  Otherwise I'll just revert it to "Judge"-whatever.
>
I don't think there's any need to introduce new terminology; it's just added
confusion, really, and if it needs cleaning up, then it's probably not worth
the effort.

> Now, I'm not trying to make one proposal better than the other.  So if you

> see problems with either of these (other than fundamental philosophical 
> ones) let me know, and I'll fit it in.
>
"other than fundamental philosophical ones"??? This is *nomic*! It's pretty
much applied philosophy; fundamental philosophical issues are pragmatic
concerns.

uin.


DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited

<<application/ms-tnef>>