Re: DIS: Re: BUS: bring back judicial protections
This is definitely "largely the same purpose". The original rule was 3 paragraphs, the new rule is the 2nd paragraph of the old rule verbatim (except for changes in officer names). The missing paragraphs were the added process (for the same purpose) that seemed unneeded. I'll fix the title thing though. On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 1:55 PM Gaelan Steele wrote: > Not just that—at the time there was a rule that reenacted rules had to > have “largely the same purpose” or something. > > Gaelan > > > On Jan 31, 2019, at 12:51 PM, Reuben Staley > wrote: > > > > I'm pretty sure that me trying to do both at the same time is why we had > to > > converge the gamestate when PAoaM was broken. > > > > -- > > Trigon > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 13:44 Ørjan Johansen > > >> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >>> 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: > >> > >> I don't think you can change the title without a separate rule change, > >> although the reenactment provision doesn't actually mention titles at > all. > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Ørjan. > >> > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: bring back judicial protections
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019, Gaelan Steele wrote: Not just that—at the time there was a rule that reenacted rules had to have “largely the same purpose” or something. Yeah, that was changed to a SHOULD in the current version. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: bring back judicial protections
Not just that—at the time there was a rule that reenacted rules had to have “largely the same purpose” or something. Gaelan > On Jan 31, 2019, at 12:51 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > I'm pretty sure that me trying to do both at the same time is why we had to > converge the gamestate when PAoaM was broken. > > -- > Trigon > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 13:44 Ørjan Johansen >> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >>> 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: >> >> I don't think you can change the title without a separate rule change, >> although the reenactment provision doesn't actually mention titles at all. >> >> Greetings, >> Ørjan. >> smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: bring back judicial protections
I'm pretty sure that me trying to do both at the same time is why we had to converge the gamestate when PAoaM was broken. -- Trigon On Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 13:44 Ørjan Johansen On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > 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: > > I don't think you can change the title without a separate rule change, > although the reenactment provision doesn't actually mention titles at all. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. >
DIS: Re: BUS: bring back judicial protections
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: 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: I don't think you can change the title without a separate rule change, although the reenactment provision doesn't actually mention titles at all. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: bring back judicial protections
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
Arbitor-equivalent):
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
cure-all.
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 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
]
DIS: Re: BUS: bring back judicial protections
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 > ] > >
