Re: DIS: Proto-proposal: Excess CFJs
Levi Stephen <levi.stephen <at> optusnet.com.au>
2007-04-02 07:28:42 GMT
Ed Murphy wrote:
> Levi wrote:
>> Attempt at cleaning up the Excess CFJ rule. I've used the following
>> as a basis for this change
>> 1. The use of 'dismiss' is unclear, due to DISMISS being a valid
>> judgement for a CFJ, but dismissal through a CFJ being an
>> Excess CFJ should be different to dismissal under rule 1565
>> 2. My guess that the Excess CFJ rule is to avoid overloading the
>> judicial system, so if there are the resources to judge the
>> Excess CFJs, then they should be judged.
>> Comments welcome. I'm sure some wording could be improved :)
>> Replace the entire text of rule 2132 with the following text:
>> A CFJ submitted by a person who has previously submitted
>> five or more CFJs during the same Agoran Week as that CFJ
>> is an Excess CFJ.
> So far, so good.
>> An Excess CFJ may be Refused, Deferred or Accepted at
>> The Clerk of the Courts discretion.
>> If Refused the Excess CFJ shall be treated as if it had
>> never been submitted.
> Agora has been trending away from "deemed", "considered", "treated
> as if". I suggest "If refused, the Excess CFJ ceases to be a CFJ".
OK. That wording is much better.
>> If Deferred the Excess CFJ shall be treated as if it had
>> been submitted, by the same person, at the beginning of the
>> following Agoran week.
> The week following the submission, or the week following the
> If a player submits more than ten CFJs within the same Agoran week,
> should the CotC be able to defer #11 twice, etc.?
>> If Accepted the Excess CFJ shall no longer be considered
>> an Excess CFJ.
> "If accepted, the Excess CFJ ceases to be Excess."
>> The Clerk of the Courts Refuses or Defers the Excess CFJ
>> by announcement.
>> The Clerk of the Courts indicates acceptance of an Excess
>> CFJ by assigning a judge to that CFJ.
> Agora has been trending away from detailed rules and toward simpler
> rules with the same net effect (e.g. the third and fourth paragraphs
> of Rule 1006, which replaced several Election rules that explicitly
> described nominations and votes).
OK. Would it be better to go with something much simpler like
"<definition of excess CFJ>. The CotC may Refuse an Excess CFJ by
announcement. The Refused CFJ ceases to be a CFJ"?
> In this vein, everything after the
> first paragraph of this proposal could be replaced with:
> "The time limit for assigning a judge to an Excess CFJ is extended
> by 106 years."
Is this only due to the deferral process not being specific enough? or
have I missed something else here?
It was my thought that the CotC would only be able to defer by one week,
and that the CotC's discretion would be to reject CFJs from someone who
submitted an unreasonably large number of CFJs. I see now that a
malicious CotC could use this to make a lot of work for judges (although
the presence of 'may' in the current rule also means this is possible).
So it is probably best to leave deferring out and go with the simpler