Zefram wrote:
something like "... whose Quality for that case is not within 5 of the
highest Quality for that case among those eligible to be judge".
"... whose Quality for that case is at least 5 less than the Quality
of another eligible judge".
Eagerness is an integer index with a value fr
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to be
>assigned as judge of a judicial case are active players.
Should be "... are the active players.".
> The CotC SHALL NOT knowingly assign a judge to a case who
>does not share the highest Quality value
Latest Revision:
Proto-Proposal: Quality Judge Assignment
{
Replace the last three paragraphs of R1868 with:
{{
Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to be
assigned as judge of a judicial case are active players. Being
unqualified to be assigned as a judge does not
inherent
On Nov 29, 2007 1:39 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What happens in this case when the partnership's quality is reduced?
> Is the alien's quality reduced like any other member's, or is the
> reduction spread over only the player members?
Actually, I guess it clearly needs to be over on
On Nov 29, 2007 1:31 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quality for all natural persons can be defaulted to 0 with only active
> players eligible to be assigned as judges. This would allow
> partnerships containing aliens to judge (albeit less often than if
> they were players).
What hap
On Nov 29, 2007 1:27 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007 1:19 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > {
> > The Quality of an entity which is composed of one or more persons is
> > the average of the quality of each of those persons. Whenever an
> > entity composed of
On Nov 29, 2007 1:19 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> {
> The Quality of an entity which is composed of one or more persons is
> the average of the quality of each of those persons. Whenever an
> entity composed of one or more persons would have its quality reduced,
> that reduction is
On Nov 29, 2007 1:05 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At least if the player actually does judge, despite their previous
> expression of disinterest in doing so. This could equally apply to
> accidental assignment of inactive players.
Due to the nature of inactivity, I think it's less l
On Nov 29, 2007 1:05 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Partnerships should never be qualified to judge, period.
> > Inactive players are unlikely to actually judge a case mistakenly
> > assigned to them.
> >
> > It may be worthwhile to let the assignment stand if the player is
> > first-
On Nov 29, 2007 11:39 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
> >In my estimation that deters from one of the strengths of this system.
> >All Players (or all possible judicial panels) are qualified judges,
> >even those who are second-class or not presently interested in
> >judg
root wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 11:12 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In my estimation that deters from one of the strengths of this system.
All Players (or all possible judicial panels) are qualified judges,
even those who are second-class or not presently interested in
judging. Will th
Roger Hicks wrote:
>In my estimation that deters from one of the strengths of this system.
>All Players (or all possible judicial panels) are qualified judges,
>even those who are second-class or not presently interested in
>judging.
My suggestion retains that aspect of your proposal. It would ma
On Nov 29, 2007 11:12 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my estimation that deters from one of the strengths of this system.
> All Players (or all possible judicial panels) are qualified judges,
> even those who are second-class or not presently interested in
> judging. Will they ever
On Nov 29, 2007 10:59 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
> >What if we revised the assignment provision to read "The CotC SHALL
> >NOT knowingly assign an unqualified judge to a case." This would
> >prevent assignments of unqualified judges from being later found
> >invalid.
Roger Hicks wrote:
>What if we revised the assignment provision to read "The CotC SHALL
>NOT knowingly assign an unqualified judge to a case." This would
>prevent assignments of unqualified judges from being later found
>invalid.
I think that's basically what you'll have to do, but don't overload
On Nov 29, 2007 10:19 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
> >Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to be
> >assigned as judge of a judicial case are those who share the highest
> >Quality value.
>
> Bad idea. Quality records are likely to get out of sy
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to be
>assigned as judge of a judicial case are those who share the highest
>Quality value.
Bad idea. Quality records are likely to get out of synch with reality,
as for example happened to OscarMeyr's posture two da
Proto-Proposal: Quality Judge Assignment
{
Amend R1868 by replacing the fourth paragraph with:
{{
Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to be
assigned as judge of a judicial case are those who share the highest
Quality value. Being unqualified to be assigned as a judge does
18 matches
Mail list logo
