Probably want the criteria for each to be SHOULDs so that we don't have CFJs about just how brilliant a judgement was. I like the idea.
Gaelan > On Mar 1, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > > We used to have more Patent Titles named in the rules, and different > officers were allowed to award them under certain conditions. We > dropped that on the grounds that the Herald could generically award > any of them when it seemed appropriate, but it meant the reasons for > some of the awards (e.g. Long Service) got lost from memory. > > Should we re-implement? E.g. > > The ADoP CAN award X months long service for X=3,6,9,12 when a > person without that title has served in a single office continuously > for that length of time. > > The Reportor (alt: Herald) CAN award Bard w/2 support to someone who > publishes certain quantities of poems. > > The Referee CAN award Scamster w/2 support to someone who performs > a major scam. > > The Arbitor CAN award the title Sage w/2 support to someone who > delivers a particularly brilliant judgement. > > Etc. > > > > >
