If the referee is the main interested party, the caller need do nothing,
other than possibly barring the referee from being the judge using the
existing barring clause.

Still, the original rule actually had more process, and I streamlined it in
this submission, but I wasn't sure if I was streamlining too much.  Here's
the full process that it had ("Justiciar" is the Referee-equivalent, CotC is

      The initiator of a judicial case CAN submit it to the Justiciar
      by announcement.  For such a case, the Justiciar CAN, in a
      timely manner, either accept or reject the case by announcement;
      until this time limit expires or the Justiciar rejects the case,
      the CotC CANNOT perform any of eir office's duties with regards
      to the case and does not incur any of eir office's obligations
      with regards to it.

      If the Justiciar accepts the case, e switches places with the
      CotC entirely with regards to that case; [...]

At the time, there was a bit more process in CFJs so the Arbitor could exert
influence in several places, with our current streamlined system the Arbitor
really only chooses the Judge (and the caller can further bar a particular
judge).  But I could definitely put the process back if my draft isn't
protective enough, I was on the fence in the first place.

But to be clear, this is only intended to be a first line of defense, so he
Caller of the CFJ here has the option to pick whether the Arbitor
compromised enough to use the referee to make the assignment instead, just
as a precaution.  It ultimately comes down to the judge, not the
Arbitor/Referee.  Given that, I wasn't sure that the "Referee can accept or
not" idea was value-added given that it adds a layer of delay.  The real
defense remains in the Moots, which is more dependent on the Judge than the
Arbitor - this is meant to head off potential Moots but was never a

On 1/30/2019 9:06 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
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 <ke...@uw.edu> 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