Zefram wrote:
> When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned,
> the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by
> announcement. Whenever this situation arises the CotC SHALL
> make such an assignment as soon as possible.
MMI does not define "CAN" (except in the context of "CAN ONLY"),
though of course the natural-language definition does apply.
This CAN+SHALL pattern appears again later, suggesting that the
definition of "SHALL" should be amended to include "can, unless
explicitly prohibited by the rules".
> Whenever a judicial case has an judicial question that has
"an judicial"?
> For the purposes of other rules assigning rewards and penalties
> for judging behaviour, this paragraph explicates certain
> terminology. To submit a judgement during one's Deliberation
> Period is to assign a judgement to a judicial question within
> obliged to and within the time limit specified by this rule.
"while obliged to", surely?
> The terms defined in this paragraph are deprecated,
Why? They're useful (other rules currently use them), and the
proto doesn't suggest any alternatives. Same question applies
to the similar deprecations near the end of Part I.
> The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
> case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one
> person from assignment as judge of the case.
Why only one?
> * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the information available to the
> judge is insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE,
> and UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however,
> uncertainty as to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot
> constitute insufficiency of information for this purpose
So a CFJ that depends on another CFJ can't be dismissed on the grounds
that the other CFJ hasn't been judged yet.
> There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.
> A criminal case's purpose is to determine the culpability of a
> particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach
> of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be
> initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly
> identifies the defendant and specifies the action (which may be
> an omission) by which the defendant allegedly breached the
> rules.
I would suggest "specifies the action or inaction", but you later
use "alleged act" several times, so I instead suggest "specifies the
action (which may be a failure to perform another action)".
> A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is
> applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has
> a judgement of GUILTY. The valid judgements for the question on
> sentencing are:
[snip]
> If a criminal case has an applicable question on sentencing
> which has a judgement, the defendant is hereafter known as the
> ninny, and things happen according to the judgement:
These lists should be combined.
> There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.
This seems to break The Standing Court, but doesn't; see below.
> An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal
> case within the past two weeks, other than an assignment caused
> by a judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any player
> with 2 support.
Including a defendant found guilty. Well, if e can't get 2 support,
then eir conviction likely wouldn't have been overturned anyway.
> The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case
> are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each
> of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior
> case and none of the members is the prior judge.
Here is why The Standing Court isn't broken:
* Only supine players are unqualified (thus, by omission, CANNOT
be assigned); sitting players merely SHALL NOT be assigned
* Players are not assigned directly to appeal cases; judicial
panels containing them may be assigned to appeal cases
> * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the
> appropriateness of the of the prior judgement
"of the" is duplicated.
