Ed Murphy wrote: >And what reason was that, then? Having a default officeholder makes officeholding indeterminate when we're not sure who the default officeholder is. It spreads uncertainty regarding the game state. We ran into this recently regarding the CotC, when resolving CFJ 1684a, where we couldn't be sure who was speaker.
And, of course, we don't need offices to be filled immediately. We can install a new officer in a mere four days if there's no disagreement, and if an office remains vacant for long then we can deputise quite easily. >>This is a better way to handle a default justice than what we had before. > >Why? Because it doesn't insist that the default justice *is* on the panel, which was another source of indeterminacy in CFJ 1684a. By merely imposing an obligation on the CotC, it is clear that a panel assignment not including the default justice is valid (albeit illegal). This way avoids calling the validity of appeal judgements into question. >>Undemocratic. > >So? I'm a fan of democracy. Not that it's the best form of government, but we have yet to find anything better. >Increased VLOP is a prerogative power. Discuss. It's not a prerogative power in the executive sense. One has increased VLOP not due to holding an exclusive position of authority but due to game actions that are open to everyone simultaneously. Variable VLOP *is* undemocratic, but the scope of its effect is restricted, so the important matters are properly democratic. I'd be happy to have VLOP constant, but I fear that it would stoke a demand for a new bit of antidemocracy. Variable VLOP is a relatively innocuous arrangement, so I go along with it in the hope that it will satisfy the antidemocratic urges of most players. -zefram
