On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 10:08 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > [most appeals cases end up remanded, the first time at least]
> >
> > Proto: auto-remand
> >
> > Create the following rule: Remand for Clarification
> >
> > If a judicial case:
> > 1) has a judgement, that has been in effect for less than seven days,
> > that has not been appealed; and
> > 2) has not, at any time in the past, been remanded for clarification
> > to the judge who delivered the judgement currently in effect;
> > then any Player can Remand the case for clarification, with 2 Support.
> >
> > When a case is remanded for clarification, the judgement ceases to
> > be in effect and becomes open, and the judge who delivered the
> > judgement is reassigned to the case.
>
> Allows a conspiracy of 3 players to keep remanding a case indefinitely,
> with no way to stop them other than appealing it first, or via proposal.
> For appeals, we have OVERRULE which, among other things, blocks future
> appeals, in case people try to abuse the appeals system. (This actually
> happened with CFJ 1984.)
Isn't this what condition 2 specifically protects against? Sure you can
remand it once, then the next one has to be Appeal. Then the appeal court
can squash it, and if Appeals remand it back, it can't be clarify-remanded
again. Since the original judge can turn around the first remand pretty
much instantly ("this remand was a delaying tactic so I deliver the same
judgement") I think this is a minor risk compared to the streamlining.
Let me know if you see a hole in this logic or in the protection that
(2) gives...
-G.
