On Nov 29, 2007 10:59 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Roger Hicks wrote: > >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. > > I think that's basically what you'll have to do, but don't overload > the term "qualified" for this. The qualified judges, as "qualified" is > presently defined, are all the (active) players, or (on appeals) all the > judicial panels of three (active) players. This concept of "qualified" > is useful and should have a CAN/CANNOT provision tied to it. What you're > trying to call "qualified" in your proto, the entity that *should* be > assigned, should have a different term and this SHALL/SHALL NOT provision. > In my estimation that deters from one of the strengths of this system. All Players (or all possible judicial panels) are qualified judges, even those who are second-class or not presently interested in judging. Will they ever be assigned? They shouldn't if things are working correctly. However, history seems to indicate that things can go wrong. When they do go wrong, it would be beneficial to have these "non-judges" still qualified to judge.
> >I'm not sure I follow your last sentence. Can you give me an example? > > Thus the general judge assignment rule doesn't need to know about > judicial panels. > Ah, thanks! I get it now. BobTHJ
