On Nov 29, 2007 10:19 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Roger Hicks wrote: > >Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to be > >assigned as judge of a judicial case are those who share the highest > >Quality value. > > Bad idea. Quality records are likely to get out of synch with reality, > as for example happened to OscarMeyr's posture two days ago. Under > your system, a mistake in recording quality means that future judge > assignments are invalid and don't occur, which means an awful lot of > state recalculation when the error is discovered. Under the present > system a mistake in posture means that future judge assignments or (as > in the recent case) rotations are illegal but still valid, so subsequent > judicial activity continues much as we perceive it to be. > What if we revised the assignment provision to read "The CotC SHALL NOT knowingly assign an unqualified judge to a case." This would prevent assignments of unqualified judges from being later found invalid.
> >Repeal R1871. > > I'd prefer that the rule be reused by the replacement rotation mechanism. > There's a lot of history in these rule numbers, and the association of > 1871 with judge rotation is useful to maintain for mnemonic value. (The > astute may have noticed that my judicial reform proposal systematically > repealed the rules that were enacted by, and so numerically associated > with, Kelly's reforms in the 1990s. Same principle applied to a contrary > objective.) > Sounds reasonable. > >If this would cause that Player's Quality to be less than or equal to > >0, each active Player's Quality is increased by eir Eagerness. > > This increase might need to be done multiple times to get all qualities > non-negative. Better to put it into a separate provision, I think, > in case quality decreases from a different cause are later introduced. > In fact, you had to repeat it in the next two paragraphs, so it's already > an obvious candidate for factoring out. > Good point. > > By the way, on naming: "quality" makes some kind of sense for an > individual case, but not for the running score. I think it's insulting > in the latter role. I suggest "turniness" or something akin for the > running score. If something is to be called "quality" it should probably > be the per-CFJ adjustments. Then the score that is used in actually > assigning a judge is probably "qualifitude", and is the sum of (per-CFJ) > quality and (running) turniness. > Thanks, I may borrow some of your terms. > >The Quality of a Judicial Panel is the sum of the Quality of its members. > > This is an interesting concept, which could do with being expanded. > You've protoed a specific provision for reducing a person's quality > when assigned to a case as part of a panel. You could do this more > neatly in the panel rule, by saying that adjustments made to a panel's > quality (or, in my separated version, turniness) are shared out among > the panel members. By running this derived panel quality in reverse, > you would avoid needing special cases in other rules. I'm not sure I follow your last sentence. Can you give me an example? > > >f) A Player MAY spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase another > >Player's Quality by N. > > Bad idea. Players can influence their quality quite a lot for free > through eagerness anyway. I think this is something that conceptually > should not be influenced by currency holdings, particularly ones that > are mainly tied to voting. Also, practically, let's not have uncertainty > in VCs cause uncertainty in judge assignments. The courts need to work > reliably even when much of the game state is unknown. > Since this seems to be a bit more controversial I think I'll break it out into a separate proposal. However, I do think the occasional "fixing" of judge assignments would make for interesting play, if it could be done in such a way as to not break the judicial system. Presently, only the CotC has the power to fix a judicial assignment. While I believe you have made efforts to fairly assign judges, it would be nice if this power were shared around to all players in a limited fashion. BobTHJ
