Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
>> I disagree. Switching to REASSIGN doesn't deny salary, it just prevents
>> excess salary from being earned. The judge still gets salary for
>> judgments like "TRUE because pigs were on an airplane" or "FALSE
>> because". Heck, you still get salary for "UNDETERMINED because I'm too
>> lazy to think about this case".
>
> Proposal: Harder on bad judges (II=1, AI=1.7, please)
> {
> Amend rule 911 (Appeal Cases) by appending the following paragraph:
> "If an appeals panel delivers a judgement other than AFFIRM, it CAN
> destroy
> any Notes and/or Ribbons the prior judge gained as a result of
> that judgement."
> }
> I intend, without objection, to make this distributable. (If Cards
> are coming soon, feel free to object.)
>
> On another note, Rests should be at the very least renamed when Cards
> come around. Maybe Chips, though those are usually good things to
> have. Hmm.
Change "Notes and/or Ribbons" to "assets" and there should be no
conflict with Cards.
What if a judge gives a bad judgement, gains a ribbon, gives a good
judgement in another case, then has the bad judgement appealed and
reassigned? The judge is effectively denied the ribbon e could/should
have gotten from the good judgement.
Perhaps notes and ribbons should only be given when a judgement becomes
unappealable.
