spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Upper House

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 4/9/02 at 11:13 PM Jonathan David Amery wrote:

>{{
>__The Upper House__
>
>If proposal #553 passed then create a rule titled __The Upper House__
> {{
>  There exists a society called `The Upper House'.  While the public
>rules of this society ever deem it to have less members than three
>then all active players shall be considered members.
> }}
> and set the rules of The Upper House to be as defined by the {{<<}} and
> {{>>}} delimited text below with the addition of the later {{@@}}
>delimited text.
>
>Otherwise create a rule titled __The Upper House__
> {{
>  There exists an entity called `The Upper House' which is a grouping
>of players.  Should it be that less than three players are members
>then the benefits and duties of being a member shall be applied to all
>active players.
>
>  The rules binding The Upper House are:
> }}
> and append the {{<<}} and {{>>}} delimited text below
>
><<
>[[
> Having been called to the Judge's bench for the third time, and for
>the third time judged on a case and had my opinion made part of the
>precident of the state I returned to my place watching the football
>game only to be interrupted by a flunky who greeted me as `My Lord'.
>
> `Why do you address me as such?', I asked him, somewhat puzzled.
>
> `It is because that with your third judgement you have joined the
>Upper House, my Lord.'
>]]
> 1) All players who have given a Judgement on 3 more CFJs that have
>not been successfully appealed than they have on CFJs that have been
>successfully appealed are members of The Upper House unless they
>choose not to be by rule 2.
>
> 2) Any member of The Upper House may declare in a public forum that
>they wish to suspend their membership.  Any player whos membership is
>currently suspended may choose to reactivate their membership.
>Players whos membership is suspended are not members of The Upper
>House even if rule 1 says that they are.
>
>[[
> `Pull the other one, it's got bells on, and I've never heard of the
>Upper House.'
>
> `Well, m'Lord, it was historically also a place where laws to be
>created were discussed and voted on, but in recent years it has become
>more of a place where rules are interpreted'
>
> `Well, what do I have to do?'
>
> `Think about rules when people ask the House to do so.'
>]]
>
> 3) If The Upper House is called to Judge on a CFJ then a panel of
>three of its members is chosen at random.  The panel has one nweek to
>come up with a judgement between them that at least two of them agree
>with.  A member of the panel then posts this judgement to a public
>forum and The Upper House has then Judged on the CFJ.
>
> 4) The Upper House cannot Judge on the same CFJ twice.
>>>
>[[
> It sounded like an easy job to me, so I didn't complain.  I just lay
>back and waited to see what happened next.
>]]
>
>@@
> 5) If a majority of the members of The Upper House agree to a change
>to its rules on a public forum within a period of 72 hours then that
>change is made.
>@@
>
>[[Someone else can tie this into the Appeal's process (or I'll do it
>my self next nweek)]]
>}}

Under what circumstances would the Upper House be asked to render a judgment?  Is the Upper House considered a Player for the purposes of Judge selection?

And if all Players are automatically members since the Upper House has zero members when it's first created, how does 1) kick in?  For that matter, if I now say, as per 2), that I choose to suspend my membership, since all Players have the benefits and duties of the Upper House, but later, after 1) kicks in, I say I wish to reactivate my membership, am I then a member whether or not I'd qualify under 1)?

I see where you're going with it.  Interesting, but needs a little work.

						Glotmorf