You're not the Arbitor, though, right? I thought you resigned. Or am I just missing something here?
On 1/26/2018 4:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Because, you know, apathy. I deputize for the Assessor to recuse Publius Scribonius Scholasticus from CFJ 3606. (recusal is over 14 days late). I assign CFJ 3606, with statement:G. CAN assign this CFJ to emself by announcement.to myself. I judge CFJ 3606 as follows: TRUE, because I CAN and I DID. NEW ARBITOR ASSIGNMENT POLICY Rule 991 reads in part: The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge. I will fulfill this requirement by assigning 0 cases to persons interested in judging (that's reasonably equal I think). I myself am NOT interested in judging. At all. I hate it. But it's the Arbitor's duty to make sure cases are judged. So I'll sacrifice myself to the common good and assign all cases to me. (If anyone else is NOT interested in judging - too bad, I'm not required to treat uninterested persons equally). ENACTMENT OF POLICY For each CFJ that: 1: Has been assigned to judge since Nov 1, 2017, and 2: Is still Open I recuse the judge from that CFJ. For each CFJ that: 1: Was called on or after Nov 1, 2017, and 2: Is open, and has no judge assigned, I assign myself to Judge that CFJ. (List of actual CFJs that meet these criteria in next Report). (Original CFJ 3606 arguments below). On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:G. CAN assign this CFJ to emself by announcement.This is CFJ 3606. I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.ARGUMENTS Rule 991 last paragraph paraphrases as following (full text in evidence). - Sentence 1 unequivocally states that the Arbitor CAN assign any player to be its judge by announcement. - Sentence 2 states that the Caller is not "eligible to be assigned". - Sentence 3 is about "interested players having equal opportunity". - Sentence 4 states that only eligible players CAN assign cases to themselves w/o 3 objections. The question is whether sentence 2's "eligibility" limitation applies backwards to the Arbitor's ability to assign judgement, or if it only applies forward (and limits self-assignment, but still allows the Arbitor to assign anyone). My personal feeling is that sentence 2 applies forward, but does not limit the Arbitor's ability to assign, literally, any player. This case occurred to me when I noticed that at least one player was not getting "equal opportunity to judge" (sentence 3) because e also called a lot of CFJs. So in the case where I (as Arbitor) can't occasionally (in rare circumstances) self-assign, I am at risk of breaking that SHALL. EVIDENCE Rule 991/23 (Power=2.0) Calls for Judgement Any person (the initiator) can initiate a Call for Judgement (CFJ, syn. Judicial Case), specifying a statement to be inquired into: a) by announcement, and spending 1 Action Point, OR b) by announcement, and spending the current CFJ cost in shinies, OR c) by announcement if e is not a player. When a person initiates a Call for Judgment, e CAN optionally bar one person from the case by announcement. At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or assigned exactly one judgement. The Arbitor is an office, responsible for the administration of justice in a manner that is fair for emself, if not for the rest of Agora. 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. The players eligible to be assigned as judge are all players except the initiator and the person barred (if any). 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. The Arbitor's weekly report includes a summary of recent judicial case activity, including open and recently-judged cases, recent judicial assignments, and a list of players interested in judging.
