Aris wrote: > A minimalist proto along the lines of #1 follows. This could be a > complex interconnected set of 15 rules, but I think it would be more > fun to leave it as minimal as possible at let the judiciary sort out > the details. > > -Aris > -- > Title: Administrative Adjudication > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: > > Enact a new rule, with power power 3.0, entitled "Administrative > Adjudication", > with the following text: > > Each officer has the power to, with notice, issue a memorandum, > which shall consist in a public document and shall, once issued, > have the power to resolve bindingly any matter within eir official area of > concern, insofar as that memorandum is neither arbitrary nor capricious.
I like the idea too! Regarding the implementation, these are very similar to regulations. Why not reuse the entity class? Something like this: Each officer CAN, with notice, enact a memorandum, which is a type of regulation. A memorandum has the power to resolve bindingly any matter within its office's area of concern. An attempt to enact a memorandum is INEFFECTIVE if it is arbitrary or capricious. /* maybe */ A memorandum is automatically repealed when all matters it regards are resolved. This has the advantage of also automatically tracking memoranda and providing mechanisms to amend or repeal them. Gaelan wrote: > I’m intrigued by the idea. I’m a little concerned that it’s TOO vague— > are these rulings CFJ-like (a means of agreeing on what happened > platonically, but with no actual platonic effect) or ratification- > like? How is arbitrariness and capriciousness defined/judged? What > about “official area of concern?” My understanding of the original proto was that the rulings were supposed to be binding, i.e. capable of modifying the gamestate, and that the other things were intentionally left vague to allow judges to rule in the best interests of the game. Gaelan wrote: > This seems like a particularly bad place for CFJ hell. When we > inevitably end up with a dispute over whether a memorandum is valid, > can that dispute itself be resolved by memorandum, by either the > original officeholder or the Arbitor? This is a good point - if judges are supposed to have authority over memoranda, the rule needs some way to stop memoranda from having authority over judges. Unsure of the best way of doing that. -twg
