In general, I think the change would be good.
----
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 31, 2017, at 10:56 PM, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And I failed - darn you utc.
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 13:42 Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Proto-Proposal that I aim to distribute before the end of May:
>
> Proposal: "Gentle Judicial Updates" AI=1.7, co-author='grok'
> {{{
> Create a new rule entitled 'Recusal' Power = 1 with the following text
> {{{
> A judge may recuse emself from a CFJ they are assigned to.
>
> When a judge recuses emself from a CFJ the following happens:
> 1 - The CFJ becomes unassigned
> 2 - The recused judge becomes ineligible to be assigned as a judge
> for a week.
> 3 - The recused judge SHOULD suggest another judge for the CFJ to
> make the Arbitor's job easier.
> }}}
>
> Update rule 591 by replacing:
> {{{
> The valid judgements, based on the facts of the case at the time
> the CFJ was initiated, are TRUE, FALSE, and DISMISS. DISMISS is
> appropriate if the statement is malformed, undecidable,
> irrelevant to the game, if insufficient information exists to
> make a judgement with reasonable effort, or the statement is
> otherwise not able to be answered TRUE or FALSE.
>
> }}}
> with
> {{{
> The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based
> on the truth or falsity of the statement at the time the inquiry
> case was initiated (if its truth value changed at that time,
> then its initial truth value is used):
>
> * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and
> logically false
>
> * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically
> true
>
> * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement is
> not relevant to the game or is an overly hypothetical
> extrapolation of the game or its rules to conditions that
> don't actually exist, or if it can be trivially determined
> from the outcome of another (possibly still undecided)
> judicial case that was not itself judged IRRELEVANT
>
> * INSUFFICIENT, appropriate if the statement does not come with
> supporting arguments or evidence, and the judge feels as if an
> undue burden is being placed on em by the lack of arguments and
> evidence. A CFJ judged INSUFFICIENT CAN and SHOULD be asked
> again with sufficient arguments/evidence.
>
> * DISMISS, appropriate if the statement is malformed, undecidable,
> if insufficient information exists to make a judgement with
> reasonable effort, or the statement is otherwise not able to be
> answered with another valid judgement.
> }}}
> }}}
>
>
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 11:11 AM Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey y'all, it's the end of the month, and I would hate to waste my PM powers
> - SO, does anyone have a particular proposal in the proposal pool they
> believe should be distributed?
>
> If not, I'm going to submit, and distribute, a proposal that addes Recusal
> and a couple of flavors of DISMISSAL to the judiciary.
