On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Paul M. Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:51, Ryan Pallas <derokor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I would prefer to see the team picked for the next occurence immediately > after one happens. > > (/me ponders) > > That leads to an interesting hypothetical situation: if you know in > advance that there's a particular team in place, you can (if a malfeasor) > send bogus reports until a team you like is in place, then send your > intended report. > > > > Or maybe something like 1 month duty at a time, but team membership may > last beyond a month, if no conflicts were had during that month. IE, you > get put on the team, you may "serve" for a year if no conflicts arise. Or > you may only server for a month, if a conflict does arrive (I think an > upper bounds when no conflicts may not be required, but should be > considered if this suggestion is taken to heart at all). > > (/me nods) > > I think it leads to a similar situation: if you know the team that's in > place, and you are a malfeasor, you can time your false-accusation to a > team that is friendly. > > Granted, I am paying attention to ways to game the system, but since we > can be sure it will be gamed, I think it's prudent to do so. > > Overall, I still assert that a reporter should not know in advance who > will handle their report, other than "5 randomly chosen voting members" > (similar to a jury pool). > > These are good points, and I fully agree - which brings back the idea of a dispatcher. Someone who receives a request, and press a button that forwards it to 5 random people (preferably with mixed powers as mentioned before). OTOH, I don't really want to ever be randomly selected (but would fulfill the duties required if selected, as I hope anyone on this list would).
