On Mon, 17 Apr 2017, Quazie wrote: > I guess the CFJ rules have enough checks and balances that this at least > leads to an initial judgement. It has the potential to put complex cases > directly on new players (the case of Ying and yang Corp comes to mind) - > but maybe that's fine? I support this proto proposal.
In a small community like this, you can find conflicts of interest for everyone. E.g. maybe I (or anyone else) has an in-game reason for not wanting Murphy to get what e gets. Funny memory: In 2007, Contracts=People brought partnerships in through the judicial back-door as a result of Zefram and I making the Pineapple Partnership. CotC Murphy was either in on the scam or just liked the idea (can't remember), so e assigned the initial CFJ (CFJ 1622: "The Pineapple Partnership is a Person") to me. The CFJ was called by the Pineapple Partnership, so there was an obvious paradox if it were judged FALSE, as only persons could call CFJs. Further, I had an obvious conflict of interest. I found TRUE. The possible paradox led to a second calling on the same statement by Murpy (CFJ 1623). Zefram and I were barred from judging. But CotC Murphy rather impishly assigned the judgement to... The Pineapple Partnership. So Zefram, on behalf of the Pineapple Partnership, opined that the PP was a person. This of course was not satisfactory to the opposition, who called the same statement a third time (CFJ 1684). This time, it went before a skeptical judge who returned FALSE. But then it went to the full appeals court. But by this time, other Corporate Persons had registered (this was the same time as Yin/Yang), and the Appeals Judge who wrote the arguments to reverse was Corporate Person Human Point Two (with two human judges concurring). It's worth noting that while the judges were all self-interested, the judgements were all well-reasoned, not obvious scam judgements. In the mean time, the ruleset changed to legislatively allow the Corporate Persons in, so a final CFJ on the same statement (CFJ 1691) settled it, without any corporate judges in the process. [ May have turned into a rambling game tale again, I think my point was that the checks and balances chug on regardless of conflicts of interest. Also, this led me to go back just now and look at Yin/Yang and other cases in the same era. So I should say, appropriate way to re-join the game Quazie! Welcome back! ]
