On Tue, 30 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I don't know if this was clear, but the intent of the proposal was > to avoid people getting "stuck" with CFJs they don't wish to judge. > Under this proposal, the only people bothered by a frivolous CFJ > are ais523 and anyone interested in judging (assuming others don't > mind skipping over the DIS messages). It's not perfect- -far from it- > -but it's better than nothing.
It wasn't clear. But being stuck with a CFJ you don't want is part of the job and random draw of being a judge, helping to clear the load. (we should definitely have judicial compensation/salaries though). > Another idea: make CFJs with no effect on the current gamestate a > dependent action of some sort. "CFJ: this cfj has an effect on the current gamestate."
