This seems like a good idea in principle, but as drafted I think it
opens up the possibility for abuse in cases where the Referee is an
interested party.  What about a proposal that did the following -- (1)
permits the Arbitor to recuse emself, naming another willing player to
act as Arbitor, provided that the other player is reasonably
disinterested in the outcome of the case; (2) permits any player with
Agoran Consent to require the Arbitor, or any player acting as the
Arbitor, to recuse emself in favor of a specified other player; and
(3) permits a player to initiate that procedure at the time the CFJ is
initiated, in which case the Arbitor is prohibited from taking any
action  on the CFJ other than recusing emself for 7 days (giving
enough time for the calling player to obtain Agoran Consent to recuse
the Arbitor).

Maybe that's a little too convoluted--but I do think there's a need to
account for the situation where the Referee is the interested party,
rather than (or in addition to) the Arbitor.

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:16 AM Kerim Aydin <> wrote:
> [D. Margaux has said e is not further abusing Arbitor to affect the course
> of eir abuse-of-office cases - I trust em on that, but we used to have a
> rule for that, too].
> I submit the following Proposal:  Arbitor-free justice, AI-2:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Re-enact Rule 2246 (name at repeal: Submitting a CFJ to the Justiciar),
> at Power-2, with the title "Submitting a CFJ to the Referee", and the
> following text:
>        When a person initiates a Call for Judgement, e CAN, optionally,
>        submit it to the Referee by announcement. All persons are
>        ENCOURAGED to submit a case to the Referee only when there is a
>        good reason not to let it be processed by the Arbitor as usual.
>        When a CFJ is submitted to the Referee, the Referee receives all
>        obligations and powers for the specific case that the Arbitor
>        would otherwise receive due to being Arbitor.  This takes
>        precedence over Rules that would otherwise assign duties and
>        powers regarding a judicial case to the Arbitor.
> [
> History of R2246:
> Created by Proposal 6181 (comex), 7 April 2009
> Amended(1) by Proposal 6333 (coppro), 29 May 2009
> Amended(2) by Proposal 6496 (coppro), 26 September 2009
> Amended(3) by Proposal 6662 (Murphy; disi.), 10 March 2010
> Amended(4) by Proposal 6752 (Murphy), 2 August 2010
> Amended(5) by Proposal 6891 (coppro), 20 November 2010
> Repealed by Proposal 6961 '52-pickup v2' (G.), 3 March 2011
> ]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to