I like this proposal. It fixes the problem of growing caseloads for
judges while still ensuring that important CFJs (those that multiple
people have an interest in) get judged.
However this proposal does not address the problem of growing caseload
for Arbitor and recordkeeping of CFJs. The Arbitor still has to keep
track of all open CFJs and who has interest in them and with this
proposal now also who is eligible for which CFJ to judge.
I think there are only two ways out of this:
1) Reducing the number of CFJs that are called.
2) Restructuring the duties of the Arbitor
I am opposed to reducing the number of CFJs by legislative ways, so here
is an Idea how to help the Arbitor out: 1. Create a new
office (Clerc) whose duties are to keep track of open unassigned CFJs
and the arguments
connected to them. This office then publishes a weekly
report with all open CFJs.
2. The Arbitor is already only required to assign cases within
a week so this would give em the chance to assign cases in bunch
once a week after the clerc published eir report.
3. Encourage eligible judges to selfassign cases
This would hopefully preprocess the open cases for the Arbitor, so that
e only assign cases nobody already picked up during the week.
I realize this creates another office that needs to be filled, but I
don't see any other way to relief the Arbitor.
Veggiekeks
Am 30.05.2017 um 08:41 schrieb Gaelan Steele:
Bah.
I retract “Judicial Reform.”
I create the AI-2 proposal “Judicial Reform v2” by Gaelan, Aris and
Quazie with the following text: <
Amend R991 “Calls for Judgement” by replacing the last paragraph
with {
“Judge Status” is a player switch tracked by the Arbitor in
eir monthly report, with valid values of “Narrow” (default)
and “Wide.” A player may flip eir own Judge Status by
announcement.
When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any
player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within
a week, but CANNOT do so if fewer than 2 days have passed
since the CFJ was initiated. The players eligible to be
assigned as judge are players except the initiator and the
person barred (if any) who fulfill one of these requirements:
1. Eir Judge Status is set to Narrow, and they have publicly
declared Interest in the CFJ.
2. Eir Judge Status is set to Wide, and they have not publicly
declared Disinterest in the CFJ.
The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to
judge. If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then any player
eligible to judge that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3
Objections.
If there are no eligible judges for a CFJ for a period of 2
weeks, any player CAN judge it as DISMISS with 2 days Notice.
}
For all players who have been assigned a CFJ within the past 2
weeks, flip their Judge Status to Wide.
>
Gaelan
On May 29, 2017, at 11:39 PM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com
<mailto:g...@canishe.com>> wrote:
I retract “Judicial Reform.”
I create the AI-2 proposal “Judicial Reform v2” by Gaelan, Aris and
Quazie with the following text: <
Amend R991 “Calls for Judgement” by replacing the last paragraph
with {
“Judge Status” is a player switch tracked by the Arbitor in
eir monthly report, with valid values of “Narrow” (default)
and “Wide.” A player may flip eir own Judge Status by
announcement.
When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any
player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so
within a week, but CANNOT do so if fewer than 2 days have
passed since the CFJ was initiated. The players eligible to
be assigned as judge are players except the initiator and
the person barred (if any) who fulfill one of these requirements:
1. Eir Judge Status is set to Narrow, and they have publicly
declared Interest in the CFJ.
2. Eir Judge Status is set to Wide, and they have not
publicly declared Disinterest in the CFJ.
The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to
judge. If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then
any player eligible to judge that CFJ CAN assign it to emself
Without 3 Objections.
If there are no eligible judges for a CFJ for a period of 2
weeks, any player CAN judge it as DISMISS with 2 days Notice.
}
For all players who have been assigned a CFJ within the past 2
weeks, flip their Judge Status to Wide.
>
Gaelan
On May 29, 2017, at 6:25 PM, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com
<mailto:quazieno...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 6:17 PM Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com
<mailto:g...@canishe.com>> wrote:
On May 29, 2017, at 6:04 PM, Aris Merchant
<thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com
<mailto:thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Missing a close parenthesis. Why do we need None? Surely any player
could occasionally want to judge a case, so the distinction seems
unnecessary.
Fair.
I'd also make Wide the default, although that is open to
debate. The judicial system is a good way to get new players
involved.
That’s a departure from the current system (not necessarily
bad). However, I’m still against it—I feel that judging should
be a decision a player makes when they feel they understand
enough of the ruleset to jump in, and faulty judgements from new
players help nobody.
None should be the default - A new player shouldn't be hit with
judging a CFJ immediately - Judicial duties should be opt in.
