I think this is a great revision. Some comments for your consideration For appeals, we could use the same reconsideration and moot process as for CFJs, and potentially use the same rule.
> Amend Rule 2152, "Mother, May I?", by appending at the end of the first > paragraph the text > "Every action or inaction that is not explicitly declared by the rules > to be impermissible is implicitly permissible, but not necessarily > possible." I am concerned that this would make crimes no longer per se illegal. I also am not sure what it means to say that actions are “implicitly permissible.” Does that mean they _are_ permissible, or that there is a presumption that they are permissible, or something else? > However, a > player SHALL NOT make a accusation of which e believes the Defendant > not to be guilty without explaining emself in the same message; to do so > is the Class-5 Crime of Witch-Hunting. This is ambiguous—it could be read to say that the explanation is witch hunting, which is clearly not intended. So I would write, “A player SHALL not accuse a player unless e believes the Defendant to be guilty or explains in the same message as the accusation what e believes regarding the Defendant’s guilt; a player who violates that requirement commits the Class 5 Crime of Witch Hunting.” > For the purposes of these definitions, > failure to take a required action before the appropriate deadline constitutes > a violation occurring at the deadline to complete the action. We don’t define the term “violation”; I can see that being a problem like the “crime” issue. Also, the time periods below are calculated based on the commission of an “Act,” and this rule doesn’t set the time for when the relevant “Act” occurs for a late action. So what if we defined the term ”Violation” to be “an act that contravenes an obligation imposed by Rule, an act defined to be a crime by the Rules, or a failure to take an action required by the Rules”, and then define innocence and guilt to be related to whether a Violation was committed, and set the time periods to run from the time of the Violation. > The Referee is by default the Adjudicator for all criminal cases. We could also allow the Referee to recuse emself and appoint another Adjudicator. > After the initiation of a criminal case, the Adjudicator CAN once > determine the verdict from among the possible verdicts specified by the > rules. E SHALL investigate the allegation and, in a timely fashion, conclude > the investigation by delivering what e believes the correct verdict > in the case. The two above quoted sentences could be combined: “After the initiation of a criminal case, the Adjudicator SHALL investigate the allegation and, in a timely fashion, CAN and SHALL conclude the investigation by once delivering what e believes the correct verdict in the case.” > The correct verdict is the first appropriate listed verdict. If it is difficult to determine which not guilty verdict is appropriate, we should give the Adjudicator the choice to deliver a later one that is clearly applicable rather than an earlier one that is unclear. Perhaps we could say: “Any verdict listed below, other than GUILTY/S, is considered to be a NOT GUILTY verdict. The Adjudicator SHALL deliver the first-listed verdict e believes to be appropriate. The Adjudicator MAY deliver a later-listed verdict of NOT GUILTY if e believes that later-listed verdict to be appropriate and the earlier-listed NOT GUILTY verdicts are either believed to be inappropriate or of uncertain appropriateness.” > Amend Rule 991, Calls for Judgement, by appending as a new paragraph at the > end of the rule > > "If a person, otherwise required to take a given action, refrains from doing > so while awaiting the outcome of a CFJ relevant to eir ability > or obligation to take the action, punishment is generally not appropriate." I would still relieve the officer of the obligation to act where we expect this to occur frequently (e.g. speaker appointments). That way, it also prevents people from deputising. Right now, someone could deputise for PM, because there were definitely Left Right winners, so someone won, but it is unclear who is laureled.
