On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 3:17 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 5/3/2020 12:02 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 2:31 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >> I submit the following proposal, "Restraining Motions", AI-3: > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing: > >> * Judging a CFJ that e was assigned to without violating a time > >> limit to do so: 5 coins (Arbitor). > >> with: > >> * Judging a CFJ that e was assigned to without violating a time > >> limit to do so, unless at the time of judgement the case was > >> open due to self-filing a motion to reconsider it: 5 coins > >> (Arbitor). > >> > >> > >> Amend Rule 2438 (Ribbons) by replacing: > >> Blue (B): When a person assigns a judgement to a CFJ, and has > >> never violated a time limit to assign a judgement to that CFJ, > >> that person earns a Blue Ribbon. > >> with: > >> Blue (B): When a person assigns a judgement to a CFJ, and has > >> never violated a time limit to assign a judgement to that CFJ, > >> nor ever self-filed a motion to reconsider that CFJ, that person > >> earns a Blue Ribbon. > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > > > > I think some change is necessary, but I think that keeping the reward for > > genuine reconsideration would be good. What about allowing the Tailor and > > Arbitor to determine whether it should be awarded and prohibit them from > > ever giving themselves such a reward? > > > > Definitely agree - my first cut is that group-filed motions still provide > rewards, on the grounds that if other people think it's worth > reconsideration it's probably genuine - do you think we need to add > additional for "genuine" self-filed corrections somewhere?
I'm not sure: often self-filed motions are done simply to save time when compared to a group-filed motion, but if a broader solution is implemented, I don't think we need to specifically address this. > > One thought is to grant some (or all?) officers a small monthly purse (I'd > say 20 coins or so) that they can use to reward other people (maybe > w/support of a non-awardee) who did something useful for their office, or > to make up something if their office created an unavoidable injustice > (rules bug cheating someone out of a reward or suchlike)...? I like this idea and I think that we should let the Treasuror or ADoP award it to the officeholder when e would be deserving of it.
