Re: DIS: proto: patent award codification

[Cuddle Beam]

Suggestion:

The Reportor (alt: Herald) CAN award Bard w/2 support to someone who publishes
certain quantities of poems.

to

The Reportor (alt: Herald) CAN award Bard w/2 support to any Player who has
performed a great feat of literature.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:53 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> Your phrasing sounds like an obligation to give the title to all deserving
> players. Maybe something like this?
>
> The following titles CAN be awarded to any player by the holders of the
> listed offices with 2 Support. They SHOULD only be given to players that
> meet the qualifications listed.
>
> - Scamster (Referee): any Player who has shown great enthusiasm,
> persistence, or skill in the perpetrating of scams.
>
> > On Mar 1, 2018, at 10:39 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Good thinking.  Definitely will add SHOULDS to the standards for each,
> > but probably good to say additionally in the rule that whether a player
> > meets those standards is a political question not a judicial one (i.e.
> > if it gets the right support/consent, it qualifies).
> >
> > Here's the old standard for scamster as an example:
> >   (a)  Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown
> >great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating
> >of scams.
> > I'd change "may be" to SHOULD here and add the "CAN with support level."
> >
> >> On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >> Probably want the criteria for each to be SHOULDs so that we don't have
> CFJs
> >> about just how brilliant a judgement was. I like the idea.
> >>
> >> Gaelan
> >>
> >>> On Mar 1, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> We used to have more Patent Titles named in the rules, and different
> >>> officers were allowed to award them under certain conditions.  We
> >>> dropped that on the grounds that the Herald could generically award
> >>> any of them when it seemed appropriate, but it meant the reasons for
> >>> some of the awards (e.g. Long Service) got lost from memory.
> >>>
> >>> Should we re-implement?  E.g.
> >>>
> >>>   The ADoP CAN award X months long service for X=3,6,9,12 when a
> >>>   person without that title has served in a single office continuously
> >>>   for that length of time.
> >>>
> >>>   The Reportor (alt: Herald) CAN award Bard w/2 support to someone who
> >>>   publishes certain quantities of poems.
> >>>
> >>>   The Referee CAN award Scamster w/2 support to someone who performs
> >>>   a major scam.
> >>>
> >>>   The Arbitor CAN award the title Sage w/2 support to someone who
> >>>   delivers a particularly brilliant judgement.
> >>>
> >>>  Etc.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>

Re: DIS: proto: patent award codification

[Gaelan Steele]

Your phrasing sounds like an obligation to give the title to all deserving 
players. Maybe something like this?

The following titles CAN be awarded to any player by the holders of the listed 
offices with 2 Support. They SHOULD only be given to players that meet the 
qualifications listed. 

- Scamster (Referee): any Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence, 
or skill in the perpetrating of scams. 

> On Mar 1, 2018, at 10:39 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thinking.  Definitely will add SHOULDS to the standards for each,
> but probably good to say additionally in the rule that whether a player
> meets those standards is a political question not a judicial one (i.e.
> if it gets the right support/consent, it qualifies).
> 
> Here's the old standard for scamster as an example:
>   (a)  Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown
>great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating
>of scams.  
> I'd change "may be" to SHOULD here and add the "CAN with support level."
> 
>> On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> Probably want the criteria for each to be SHOULDs so that we don't have CFJs 
>> about just how brilliant a judgement was. I like the idea. 
>> 
>> Gaelan  
>> 
>>> On Mar 1, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> We used to have more Patent Titles named in the rules, and different
>>> officers were allowed to award them under certain conditions.  We
>>> dropped that on the grounds that the Herald could generically award
>>> any of them when it seemed appropriate, but it meant the reasons for
>>> some of the awards (e.g. Long Service) got lost from memory.
>>> 
>>> Should we re-implement?  E.g.
>>> 
>>>   The ADoP CAN award X months long service for X=3,6,9,12 when a
>>>   person without that title has served in a single office continuously
>>>   for that length of time.
>>> 
>>>   The Reportor (alt: Herald) CAN award Bard w/2 support to someone who 
>>>   publishes certain quantities of poems.
>>> 
>>>   The Referee CAN award Scamster w/2 support to someone who performs
>>>   a major scam.
>>> 
>>>   The Arbitor CAN award the title Sage w/2 support to someone who 
>>>   delivers a particularly brilliant judgement.
>>> 
>>>  Etc.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: DIS: proto: patent award codification

[Kerim Aydin]

Good thinking.  Definitely will add SHOULDS to the standards for each,
but probably good to say additionally in the rule that whether a player
meets those standards is a political question not a judicial one (i.e.
if it gets the right support/consent, it qualifies).

Here's the old standard for scamster as an example:
   (a)  Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown
great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating
of scams.  
I'd change "may be" to SHOULD here and add the "CAN with support level."

On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Probably want the criteria for each to be SHOULDs so that we don't have CFJs 
> about just how brilliant a judgement was. I like the idea. 
> 
> Gaelan  
> 
> > On Mar 1, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > We used to have more Patent Titles named in the rules, and different
> > officers were allowed to award them under certain conditions.  We
> > dropped that on the grounds that the Herald could generically award
> > any of them when it seemed appropriate, but it meant the reasons for
> > some of the awards (e.g. Long Service) got lost from memory.
> > 
> > Should we re-implement?  E.g.
> > 
> >The ADoP CAN award X months long service for X=3,6,9,12 when a
> >person without that title has served in a single office continuously
> >for that length of time.
> > 
> >The Reportor (alt: Herald) CAN award Bard w/2 support to someone who 
> >publishes certain quantities of poems.
> > 
> >The Referee CAN award Scamster w/2 support to someone who performs
> >a major scam.
> > 
> >The Arbitor CAN award the title Sage w/2 support to someone who 
> >delivers a particularly brilliant judgement.
> > 
> >   Etc.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Re: DIS: proto: patent award codification

[Gaelan Steele]

Probably want the criteria for each to be SHOULDs so that we don't have CFJs 
about just how brilliant a judgement was. I like the idea. 

Gaelan  

> On Mar 1, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We used to have more Patent Titles named in the rules, and different
> officers were allowed to award them under certain conditions.  We
> dropped that on the grounds that the Herald could generically award
> any of them when it seemed appropriate, but it meant the reasons for
> some of the awards (e.g. Long Service) got lost from memory.
> 
> Should we re-implement?  E.g.
> 
>The ADoP CAN award X months long service for X=3,6,9,12 when a
>person without that title has served in a single office continuously
>for that length of time.
> 
>The Reportor (alt: Herald) CAN award Bard w/2 support to someone who 
>publishes certain quantities of poems.
> 
>The Referee CAN award Scamster w/2 support to someone who performs
>a major scam.
> 
>The Arbitor CAN award the title Sage w/2 support to someone who 
>delivers a particularly brilliant judgement.
> 
>   Etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>