root wrote: >> To assign a member to a judicial panel is to add em to its >> membership, provided that e is qualified to become a member of >> that panel. To recuse a member from a judicial panel is to remove >> em from its membership. > > Confusing overloading of "assign" and "recuse". Also, nothing > empowers the CotC to do either of these things.
The overloading is intentional, e.g. members recused from a panel with cause would be required to be flipped to supine. The empowerment was intended to come from the next part you quoted, though on review, it needs to be made more explicit. >> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a judicial panel CANNOT >> be recused; if the Clerk of the Courts would otherwise be required >> to recuse a panel, e is instead required to recuse one or more >> members with cause and assign an equal number of replacements. > > Potential scam: the CotC assigns a panel including emself, refuses to > agree to a judgement for a week, recuses the other two panel members, > and then assigns whatever judgement e wants. This can be blocked by specifying that only a three-member panel can deliver judgement. > As a whole, I have to say that I don't really like the idea of adding > unnecessary complexity to the rules just to match the existing CotC > templates. It's also intended to better fit the conceptual practice of assigning a new panel with two members in common with the old panel, especially when those two attempted to come to agreement. (Side note: Do players feel that majority-plus-CotC is more or less warranted when the odd panelist expresses a contrary opinion, vs. when e says nothing?)
