I have some thoughts for revamping it and I could throw something together, if others share there ideas on what would make it helpful.
---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Thu, 25 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 14:53 +0000, Quazie wrote: > > > I still think some thing along the lines of: "A judge may recuse emself > > > from a case, at which point they become unassigned from said case. > When a > > > judge recuses emself, or is late to judge a CFJ and eir cade had been > > > reassigned, they become ineligible to be assigned as a judge for a > week" > > > > If a judge times out from a case without an obvious explanation as to > > why, I remove them from the list (although they can go back on the list > > by announcement). > > > > This is basically the old "standing court" system of assigning judges > > (although the numbers I'm using in my system are slightly different > > from the old system, in that the number of CFJs per judge can get > > slightly more out of sync, the same basic principles still apply). > > The informal method of the last few years worked well-enough at low > traffic, > but given the high volume of the last month, we may need an overall > CFJ process rewrite/formalization to smooth things out, I think several > issues are cropping up. > > (list: more flexibile voluntary recusals, assignment swapping, non-player > judges, processed-based DISMISSALS). > > There was nothing *wrong* with the old standing court system, and it had > it's interesting gaming aspects (e.g. in scams, waiting until the rotation > brought up someone favorable). It was just a lot of machinery when there > were just a few of us and the pace was slow. > > > >
