On Sun, 2024-08-25 at 16:41 -0400, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote: > On 8/24/24 10:06 AM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-official wrote: > > > ==================================================================== > > ==== > > ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS > > This, plus the titles and dividing lines suggests to me there are > three > regulations here... > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---- > > Public exercise of judiciary powers > > > > This regulation currently does not provide for players to act > > on > > behalf of the Arbitor to exercise eir official powers. > > ...so to have the intended effect, this should be "These > regulations... > do..." >
I mean, the "intended effect" is just nothing at all. I divided it this way to match the three domains of control of Administrative Regulations. In theory I like the idea of granting players some measure of control over official powers in case of, for example, an absent officer, but CFJs already have everything I could think of baked into the rules. For example, it's already possible to self-assign cases without 3 objections. I guess I could allow people to initiate Moot decisions on my behalf, but it feels a bit superfluous; there have been, like, two or something since I've been playing. ~qenya
