Levi wrote:
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?
The idea is that the CotC may effectively accept an Excess CFJ (by
assigning it within the usual time limit), defer it (by assigning it
beyond the usual time limit), or reject it (by failing to assign it
at all). This could also say "The time limit ... is revoked", but
this may require amending other rules to allow revocation.
"106 years" is a reference to the Terrible Proposals from Nomic World,
which scammed its point awards for voting opposite the majority:
http://www.nomic.net/deadgames/nomicworld/norrish/terrible-proposals.txt
> 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 option.
It would also be possible under a new "accept/reject only" rule, as e
could simply accept them all. The general check on egregious misuse of
an office is the risk of being removed from that office.
