On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 23:12, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > We've had a couple conversations along similar lines in the last year > or two and people were generally positive. Specifically two ideas > came up: (1) making each officer the "primary judge" on disputes > about their reports, with some language that judges can only overrule > the officers if their decisions are "arbitrary and capricious" (or > some other legal standard of choice that we can set precedents about - > "arbitrary and capricious" is one used in U.S. government > regulations). (2) dividing the ruleset itself so that rule categories > are more binding, and rules precedence works as "category then power" > (e.g. any rule in the "economy" category has precedence over > "non-economy" category when it comes to coins; then within the economy > category you look at power, and the officer has some extra abilities > within their defining category).
Do you have references? In my response to Jason Cobb just now I suggested (2) might be Trigon's "Interesting Chambers" proposal, but a quick skim of that doesn't actually show any changes to how precedence works. Or did I miss it? - Falsifian
