[spoon-discuss] Draft: Less Is More: Justice

["David E. Smith" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, it's time for another goofy, controversial Less Is More notion. Next
nweek, I'll propose to combine the whole ruleset into a simple "roll
1d(number of players) and award Wins accordingly" :)

{{ __Less Is More: Justice__

[[ This tries to combine all the CFI rules into one rule and to streamline
the process. Anything even remotely interesting is gonna get appealed
anyway, so let's just assign three judges off the bat.

It also gets rid of the LMJ silliness, the Upper House, and a lot of other
cruft that gets in the way of settling disputes quickly and easily. Well,
as easily as we can without using Imperial Nomic vigilante-style justice. ]]

Replace the text of Rule 126 with the following:

{{ __Call For Inquiry__

A. Definitions

A.1. Defendant: A Defendant is any single player, or the Administrator,
who is accused of violating the rules.
A.2. Plaintiff: The Plaintiff is the player who challenges the legality of
a game action or rules interpretation by authoring and submitting a CFI.
A.3. Argument: An Argument is a statement of facts, or interpretation of
rules, submitted by a party involved in a CFI.
A.4. CFI: A Call For Inquiry is a legal complaint or question about the
rules, or the interpretation thereof.
A.5. Judge: A Judge is a player selected to rule on the veracity of a
Statement.
A.6. Statement: A phrase, sentence, or short paragraph which can be
declared to be either True or False.
A.7. Response: A single Judge's statement as to the veracity of a
Statement.
A.8. Judgment: The majority opinion of all Responses to a CFI.


B. Process

B.1. Calling for a CFI
A Player who has a question or complaint about the rules, or the
interpretation thereof, may issue a Call For Inquiry. A CFI must contain
all of the required elements, and may contain any or all of the following
optional elements.

The elements of a CFI are:

* A Statement. (Required)
* A named Plaintiff. (Optional)
* An Analysis. (Optional) [[ but recommended ]]

The author of the CFI shall be referred to as the Plaintiff.

B.2. Recognition
The Administrator must recognize all CFIs unless explicitly permitted to
refuse to recognize a CFI. [[ See "Rescinding a CFI" and "Summary
Judgment" below. ]]

The Administrator shall assign a serial number to each CFI.

CFIs can only be revised by the Plaintiff rescinding the CFI, or by
otherwise legal actions (i.e. Rectification). The text of the original CFI
may not be otherwise modified, though Judges' Analysis and other
supporting documentation may also be included with the CFI. [[ Basically,
what we've always done. ]]

B.3. Judge Selection

The Administrator shall randomly select three eligible players to Judge
the CFI. All players are eligible except the Plaintiff, Defendant (if one
is named), and players On Leave.


C. Judgment

C.1. Responses
Within seven days of selection, each Judge shall give one of the following
responses to the CFI to which e was assigned:

1. TRUE: The Statement is True.
2. FALSE: The Statement is False.
3. UNDECIDED: The veracity of the Statement cannot be determined at this time.
4. REFUSED: The Statement is not relevant to the game.

Judges are encouraged, but not required, to post Analysis with their
responses. These Analyses shall be added to the Judicial Record. A Judge
may not make rulings which directly contradict the Rules, though e may
cite precedent, custom, and the spirit of the game in eir Analysis.

C.2. Counting
If a majority of Judges selected for a CFI submit the same Response, that
Response shall be the Judgment for the CFI. If and only if the Response is
True, the Administrator shall adjust the game state to reflect the
veracity of the Statement.

If there is no majority opinion, The Administrator shall submit a Response
to break the tie. The Administrator is requested and required to act in
the best interest of the game as a whole.


D. Caveats [[ i.e. stuff that needs to go somewhere but I don't know where
yet ]]

D.1. Statute of Limitations
No CFI may be made about any event which occurred more than the greater of
ten days or ten ndays prior to the issuance of said CFI.

D.2. Rescinding a CFI
At any time before Judgment has been rendered, the Plaintiff may Rescind
eir CFI. The Plaintiff shall be penalized 1d3 points. The Plaintiff may
not submit an identicall or substantially similar CFI. The Administrator
is not required to recognize CFIs that are identical or substantially
similar to previously rescinded CFIs. This is an explicit exception to the
requirement that the Administrator must recognize all CFIs.

D.3. Judicial Irresponsibility
Any player who has been selected as a Judge, but fails to issue a Response
within 7 ndays, shall be penalized 20 points, and fined (1d5)*100 BNS
(though such a fine cannot reduce a player's BNS balance below 0BNS). That
player then automatically submits a judgment of UNDECIDED.

D.4. Judicial Slacking-Off
Any player who has been selected as a Judge, but who goes On Leave without
submitting a Response to any CFI to which e has been assigned, shall be
penalized as though e failed to issue a Response after 7 ndays (q.v. the
previous section).

D.5. Whining
No player may submit a CFI which is identical or substantially similar to
a previous CFI which has already been Judged. [[ I need to work out the
precise wording of this clause, and the penalties thereof. It'll probably
be similar to the rescinding clause. ]]

D.6. Summary Judgment
If a CFI calls for a single, simple, and obvious adjustment to the
gamestate, and is supported with a clear, coherent Argument, the
Administrator may issue a Summary Judgment of TRUE on that CFI instead of
formally recognizing the CFI. If any player objects to the Summary
Judgment, any changes made to the gamestate concurrent to eir Summary
Judgment shall be repealed, and a serial number and Judges shall be
assigned normally.

[[ If someone is retarded and CFIs my accidentally forgetting to give em
three points, or something equally inane, and it's obvious that I simply
overlooked or mis-interpreted something, we can clean it up quickly
without tying up the justice system. ]]

}}


Repeal rules [[126, ]] 127, 128, 209, 404, 633, 704. Delete the Charter of
the Upper House and disband that Society. Remove all players from the LMJ,
then disband and delete the LMJ.

}}


---- David E. Smith, POB 515045, St. Louis, MO 63151
http://www.technopagan.org/     http://metadave.net/
http://www.bureau42.com/        http://whatIsay.com/

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss