Re: [s-d] Judgement draft

[shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx]

Okay, the recording of RFJs are covered.  But I still think that for
reference purposes it would be nice to have a pointer from the rule to
the RFJ that effects it.  (I think b-nomic did something similar in
it's previous era.)

You might want to put something in that stops me continually calling
for a judgement on the same matter.  OTOH you might then need to add
something about an appeal process...

I have no problem with the Admin choosing the Judge.  But you might
consider choosing the judge randomly, too.

On 11/24/06, Peter Cooper Jr. <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>


-- 
It's Like This

Even the Samurai
Have teddy bears
And even the teddy bears
Get drunk
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss