On 1/10/2020 6:53 PM, Falsifian wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 23:12, G. 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?
IIRC, a Discussion conversation about (2) was the inspiration leading up to
Trigon's "Interesting Chambers" but the proposal itself didn't go very far
in that direction. The discussion for (1) was longer ago - hmm, again not a
Proposal, I think it was a bit of discussion surrounding this clause in the
2018 FRC Tournament (this is the slightly-modified version from the 2019
Tournament):
> 13. The judge is the final arbitor on matters of this tournament, and eir
> decisions can overturned if and only if a CFJ finds eir decisions were
> made with arbitrary or capricious disregard for the terms of these
> regulations. The judge shall adjudicate these regulations in an
> equitable manner, with emphasis placed on the intent of the clauses
> and the fair treatment of all parties.
-G.
