On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Zefram wrote: > comex wrote: > >But this would be pointless, since you're only barring 1/3 of the > >people you want to. > > If you're going to bar three pro-appeal people, there ought to be > some balance by barring more anti-appeal people. I think barring one > pro-appeal person is about right: the prior judge, who is presumably > anti-appeal, is automatically barred, and is currently the only person > barred specifically from the appeal panel. Perhaps the initiators of the appeal could have the option of (at the cost of barring themselves) barring two other players. This could be possible only if there would be at least X eligible panels afterwards (to prevent rigging).
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
