On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 6:09 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > I point my finger at the H. Arbitor for failing to assign a judge to CFJ > 1706 in a timely fashion, although I request that the H. Referee not > punish em too harshly. > > CFJ 1706 [0] was judged by the Pineapple Partnership, which at the time, > was legally a person and thus eligible to judge judicial cases. However, > Rule 869 does not currently define any partnerships as persons: > > > Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and > > communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person. Rules to > > the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons. > > > Rule 991 says: > > > Judge is an untracked CFJ switch with possible values of any > > person or "unassigned" (default). > > and > > > When a CFJ's judge is unassigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any > > eligible player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so > > in a timely fashion. > > > Because the Pineapple Partnership is not a person, at some point in the > past, CFJ 1706's Judge came to have the default value of "unassigned" by > Rule 2162: > > > If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a possible value, > > it comes to have its default value. > > > Seeing as CFJ 1706 is unassigned, the Arbitor SHALL assign an eligible > player to it in a timely fashion. E has not done so in the previous > week, and this has failed to meet this requirement. > > > [0]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1706 > > -- > Jason Cobb >
I need to conduct a more thorough investigation before resolving this, but on a first pass, R911 is poorly drafted because it imposes a requirement to do something "in a timely fashion" after every continuous moment in a series, which makes me wonder whether G. has violated this rule infinitely many times. Obviously, that's not the intent and not an interpretation I plan to take, but I do think we should rephrase it.
