Ed Murphy wrote: > The CotC SHALL NOT assign a sitting or leaning player to be the > judge of any judicial case.
You need to also change "are sitting players" to "are sitting or leaning players" in the last paragraph. > A hanging player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any > inquiry case. A hugging player is unqualified to be assigned as > judge of any criminal case. Hmm. What about equity cases, if that proposal passes? Should this be a set of single-bit flags? You could also perhaps merge this concept with supine status, gaining some simplicity but changing the turn semantics a bit. >[Leaning players are candidates for judicial panels, but not inquiry >or criminal cases.] Interesting idea. At the moment we're short of judges for appeals. There are six generally-qualified judges. It often happens that one of them will call a CFJ, barring another. The CFJ is then judged by a third, and if it is appealed then the appeal panel necessarily contains the remaining three. If we went down to five generally-qualified judges we'd be in trouble. So players willing to sit on appeals only would be welcome. -zefram
