ehird wrote: > On 19 Nov 2008, at 17:47, Ed Murphy wrote: > >> I really don't see someone with a long history of attempting scams >> being >> voted into the office that decides who gets first shot at adjudicating >> the success or failure of scams. Of course, this may change as the >> player population does. > > FYI, I would use a random number generator.
The current interface defaults to random (except giving hugging and hanging judges preference). This used to be required, but (on top of Platonic headaches) sometimes you want to change it up manually so that more judges can be included in the rotation. > Also: If I assign a scamster > judge to a scam case, it will obviously be appealed no matter what, so I > wouldn't. Probably. I've actually limited the extent to which scam cases are assigned to vocal anti-scamsters, for similar reasons.
