On Sunday 16 December 2007 03:10:45 Ian Kelly wrote: > On Dec 15, 2007 3:57 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rule 5/0 (Power=3) > > Win by Paradox > > Win by paradox is entirely optional. I question its inclusion as a "core" > rule. Why, then, is it in Suber's ruleset?
> > Rules have ID numbers, assigned by the Speaker. Rules have titles; > > if a rule does not have a title, the Speaker SHALL a title to it > > by announcement as soon as possible. > > "By announcement" is not defined, but maybe that's okay. That *does* need to be defined. > > 2) Repeal a rule. A repealed rule ceases to be a rule, and > > the Rulekeeper need not keep a record of the rule. > > "Rulekeeper" is not defined. Rule 14 has the Speaker recording rules. Ooops. I went from defining the IADoP, CotC, Registrar, and the Rulekeepor to just defining the Speaker, and didn't fix all of it. > > Rule 25/0 (Power=2) > > Judge Assignment > > > > The Speaker must, upon a CFJ being initiated, assign a > > judge to the case. E may only assign a judge who is a > > player and is not a judge for a currently-active case. > > There does not appear to be any requirement upon the assigned judge to > actually make a decision, nor any procedure to resolve judicial > default (other than just re-initiating the case), nor any procedure > for assigning a judge when all players are already tied up in active > cases. That *is* a fairly major bug. > > Rule 27/0 (Power=2) > > Appeals > > > > A player may, within a week of the judicial decision being > > made, appeal a case. Upon doing so, the case becomes > > active again, without a judge. The Speaker MAY NOT assign > > the same judge to the case. > > This is too loose. The only way to finalize appeal in a controversial > case is to run out of players who can judge it. > Perhaps I should add in a bit more of the Agoran court structure. > > A term defined by the Rules has that meaning. Anything not > > so defined has, by default, its ordinary linguistic > > meaning. > > It's not clear that "ordinary linguistic meaning" amounts to the same > thing as Agora's "ordinary-language meaning". In particular, > "ordinary linguistic meaning" might be taken to mean "ordinary meaning > from the science of linguistics", which is certainly not what is > desired. > > I've noticed similar rephrasings that give me pause in other places. > In general, I think it would be better to copy Agora's phrasing than > to try to improve it. Fair enough. > > Rule 30/0 (Power=3) > > ID Numbers > > This seems an odd choice for inclusion, considering that we've only > had formalized ID numbers for a few months now, during which time they > have had no appreciable impact on the game apart from some extra > bookkeeping. Um. . . Yeah. Maybe it would be useful to just apply common sense to that part of the rules?
