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

[Jonathan David Amery <jdamery@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 Any more comments on this?:

 I revise proposal #559 in its entirity to read:

{{
__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 eligible to be 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 all active players shall be considered eligible to be members.

  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 eligible to be members of The Upper House.

 2) All players who are eligible to be members are unless they
choose not to be by rule 3. 

 2) Any member of The Upper House may declare in a public forum that
they wish to suspend their membership.  Any player who is eligible to
be a member, but whos membership is currently suspended may
reactivate their membership by declaring that in a public forum.
Players whos membership is suspended are not members of The Upper
House.

[[
 `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 Appeals process (or I'll do it
my self next nweek)]]
}}