On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Zefram wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: >> already pointed out how the old system (under which the individual >> significance of an individual action could be determined immediately) >> is simpler than the new (in which it cannot be determined until the >> panel acts); > > If you want to go back to panel members submitting individual opinions > and voting, that's a legitimate subject for legislation. You can do it > all within rule 2157, without affecting the way panels interact with > the rest of the system. See, modularity. I'd vote against, though, > because I prefer the collective decision-making model. Maybe it wants > tweaking, but I'd like to keep it collective.
I agree with Zefram in that I greatly prefer the collective-decision model, but notwithstanding what the CotC is supposed to track, as a panelist I (and others) have had trouble knowing what was consented to (e.g. if a panelist consents to a judgement I propose, but I mildly tweak the argument, does e still consent? Was that general statement of agreement e just made an actual consent?) Perhaps a compromise is to just change "with consent" to "with Support" thus slightly formalizing the collective approval, providing a record of consent if the CotC chooses to track it, and speeding things along by making it clear when a panel action is formally proposed rather than merely being chatted about. > (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?) I feel that as long as the majority makes a good-faith effort to respond to or strongly consider the minority objection, it is warranted. > You can do that with the current system as well. All it lacks is the > notion of individual recusal, and I'm not convinced that we need that. I also prefer to assign and recuse panels as a bloc. >> I may also switch to a policy of either supporting >> majority opinions pre-emptively, or assigning completely new panels when >> the members of the old panel fail to request such support. I don't like pre-emptive support, I think it is reasonable for the CotC to look at the "quality of the discussions" as well as panel requests to see if the whole panel is just not responding (and needs complete recusal) or whether there's just one non-participating member, or whether everyone's participating and at loggerheads. -Goethe
