Re: [s-d] Judgement draft

["Peter Cooper Jr." <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Antonio wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have written a draft (already wikified) for a proposal implementing
> Judgement.
> I would very much appreciate if you tell me what problems you can spot
>
> ==Judgement==
> ===Request For Judgement===
> Whenever there is disagreement as to the interpretation of the rules any
> player may submit a Request For Judgement (also called RFJ) as a Game
> Action.
> RFJs are Game Documents that contain exactly one Statement and optionally
> some supporting Reasoning.
> RFJs automatically gain an RFJ Number upon submission. For each new RFJ,
> the RFJ number shall be equal to 001 or, if such Number is already in use,
> to the greatest existing RFJ Number incremented by one.
> A RFJ is in one of the states of Pending, Accepted, Invalid and Resolved.
> A RFJ is initally Pending.
>
> ===Selecting the Judge===
> Upon submission of an RFJ the Administrator shall select a Judge for that
> RFJ.
> All Players that have voted in the last nweek, except the Player that
> submitted the RFJ, the Administrator, and Players that have already been
> selected as Judges for that RFJ, are eligible for selection as Judges. If
> no Player is eligible, the Administrator is automatically selected as
> Judge.

In the past, we've allowed the submitter to designate a "defendant" for
the CFJ that also is ineligible. That way you can make a statement like
"Wonko didn't just win the game" and guarantee Wonko won't get assigned to
it. Also, if I become the defendent, I probably shouldn't be the one to
pick a Judge. (As the rules stand now, I'm just as much a player as
everyone else and can try to win the game.)

> ===Stepping Down===
> the Player selected as Judge may step down from office, in this case, the
> RFJ becomes Pending (if it not already) and a new Judge is selected by the
> Administrator.

I think you mean "if it isn't already".

> ===Accepting RFJs===
> The selected Judge shall accept eir assigned RFJ by publicly changing it's
> state to Accepted.

I think it may be a good idea to clarify that this is a Game Action, which
then means that it has to be public by the definition of Game Action.

> The selected Judge may also change the RFJ's state to Invalid, if e
> considers the contained Statement to be unclear, ambiguous, or just random
> jubberish.
>
> ===Rendering Judgement===
> Once an RFJ is Accepted, the selected Judge shall render Judgement on it
> to the best of eir knowledge of the Rules. Judgement shall conform to
> these possibilities:
> * TRUE: the statement contained in the RFJ is true.
> * FALSE: the statement contained in the RFJ is false.
> The Judge may also submit his own Reasoning, explaining how eir
> interpretation of the Rules has led to Judgement.
> Once Judgement is rendered, the state of the RFJ changes to Resolved.
>
> ===The Whole Point===
> Resolved RFJs shall guide further interpretation of the Rules.
>
> ===Automatic Reassignement===
> At the end of each nweek, if a RFJ has been Accepted for a whole nweek the
> RFJ becomes Pending.
> At the beginning of each nweek, if a RFJ is Pending the Administrator
> shall select a new Judge for that RFJ.

If the RFJ is about something fundamental to the game, we may want to stop
the clock while we wait for the RFJ to be resolved. So, triggering these
off of the starts and stops of nweeks might not be the best idea...

I definitely think this is off to a great start, though.

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