On Tue, 30 May 2017, Nicholas Evans wrote:
> What about an analogous pending system for CFJs? Anyone can submit but
> they only get assigned to a judge after someone has paid the fee. The
> fee should be low and stable. The judge gets paid the fee upon
> judgment. Even 2 shinies is probably enough to slow tge pace down
> without stopping it, and because other people can 'pend' your CFJ it
> doesn't completely lock out new players.
Again, I'm hesitant to ask the Arbitor to have to decide whether to assign
case numbers based on shiny holdings/success and so forth. Or have the
Arbitor decide if a CFJ is "trivial" or "no effect", as that invites follow-
up CFJs on whether the Arbitor decided correctly.
My suggestions are:
1. Take a breath and see if the last 2 weeks is an anomaly before changing
assignment procedure;
2. After-the-case fees for judges, which one of the currency-tracking
officers can track based on easily-found CotC-published judgements;
3. Allowing the Judge (not the Arbitor) to "quickly" DISMISS trivial
cases, or cases with poorly-provided or poorly-formatted arguments.
Differentiate IRRELEVANT and other old categories of "not true/false"
to support this.
4. Allow graceful judge-switching (a Judge can hand off the case to someone
else).
5. I really like Quazie's [CFJ] in subject line. In fact, if we truly are
jumping to the "next level" in terms of activity, maybe one way of scaling
up is to end our longstanding practice of ignoring subject lines. I could
see [CFJ], [Transfer], [Intent] and others all being useful, first with a
SHOULD, then maybe with a CAN ONLY.
