On 8/1/2019 8:12 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 8/1/19 10:54 AM, James Cook wrote:
R991 still says "The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that
all interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.".
I'm not sure what an "eligible judge" is, but it might just be any
Player who the CFJ can be assigned to, i.e. anyone but the initiator
or the person barred by the initiator. The provision might be there so
that the Arbitor doesn't need to resort to assigning cases to players
who never signed up to be judges.
R991 says that the eligible judges for a case are all players except the
caller and person barred.
You may be right about the intent - I was reading it as "no other eligible
judges have expressed interest in judging" _this specific case_, which I
think would be bad (and a remnant from the old system).
In practice, I'd take this on a per-case basis, but with the addition that
if you have opted in to judging generally, you have opted in to each case by
default ("showing interest" in judging a purposefully weaker standard then,
say, requiring "consent" to judge each case).
So in this situation:
- If there was an eligible judge on the "interested" list, I'd pick one as
they are by default "displaying interest" in every case.
- If all such persons are ineligible or have explicitly opted out of this
case, then I'd do a call "is anyone at all who's eligible willing to take
this case (even if you're not on my judge list)?"
- Only if both of those fail would I conclude that no other judges have
displayed interest, then I'd assign it to the same judge.
-G.
