Roger Hicks wrote: >Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to be >assigned as judge of a judicial case are those who share the highest >Quality value.
Bad idea. Quality records are likely to get out of synch with reality, as for example happened to OscarMeyr's posture two days ago. Under your system, a mistake in recording quality means that future judge assignments are invalid and don't occur, which means an awful lot of state recalculation when the error is discovered. Under the present system a mistake in posture means that future judge assignments or (as in the recent case) rotations are illegal but still valid, so subsequent judicial activity continues much as we perceive it to be. Furthermore, an inaccurate quality stays inaccurate indefinitely. The most common type of posture inaccuracy, recording sitting for standing or vice versa, heals itself at the next rotation. >Repeal R1871. I'd prefer that the rule be reused by the replacement rotation mechanism. There's a lot of history in these rule numbers, and the association of 1871 with judge rotation is useful to maintain for mnemonic value. (The astute may have noticed that my judicial reform proposal systematically repealed the rules that were enacted by, and so numerically associated with, Kelly's reforms in the 1990s. Same principle applied to a contrary objective.) >Quality is a Player index I don't think the construction "Player index" is supported by the rules. We have "Player switch", but the switch rule specifically refers to switches being possessed by specific classes of entities. > A Player MAY set >eir Quality to 0 by announcement. "CAN", please, since that's the important bit. >Eagerness is a Player index with a value from 0 to 10, and a default >value of 0. A first-class Player MAY set eir Eagerness index to any >valid value by announcement. Do you intend to allow non-integer values? >If this would cause that Player's Quality to be less than or equal to >0, each active Player's Quality is increased by eir Eagerness. This increase might need to be done multiple times to get all qualities non-negative. Better to put it into a separate provision, I think, in case quality decreases from a different cause are later introduced. In fact, you had to repeat it in the next two paragraphs, so it's already an obvious candidate for factoring out. What are the intended invariants? Should a player with positive eagerness always have positive quality too? >A Judge who is a player and has been recused from a case (for any >reason) has their >Quality value reduced by 20 for the purposes of determining >eligibility of judges in that case. This system of quality modifications for the purposes of a particular case sounds like you've got two concepts being shoehorned into one name. I suggest that you separate it into the persistent running score and a distinct per-CFJ derived quantity. By the way, on naming: "quality" makes some kind of sense for an individual case, but not for the running score. I think it's insulting in the latter role. I suggest "turniness" or something akin for the running score. If something is to be called "quality" it should probably be the per-CFJ adjustments. Then the score that is used in actually assigning a judge is probably "qualifitude", and is the sum of (per-CFJ) quality and (running) turniness. >The Quality of a Judicial Panel is the sum of the Quality of its members. This is an interesting concept, which could do with being expanded. You've protoed a specific provision for reducing a person's quality when assigned to a case as part of a panel. You could do this more neatly in the panel rule, by saying that adjustments made to a panel's quality (or, in my separated version, turniness) are shared out among the panel members. By running this derived panel quality in reverse, you would avoid needing special cases in other rules. >f) A Player MAY spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase another >Player's Quality by N. Bad idea. Players can influence their quality quite a lot for free through eagerness anyway. I think this is something that conceptually should not be influenced by currency holdings, particularly ones that are mainly tied to voting. Also, practically, let's not have uncertainty in VCs cause uncertainty in judge assignments. The courts need to work reliably even when much of the game state is unknown. -zefram
