On Nov 29, 2007 1:05 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Partnerships should never be qualified to judge, period.
> > Inactive players are unlikely to actually judge a case mistakenly
> > assigned to them.
> >
> > It may be worthwhile to let the assignment stand if the player is
> > first-class and active but not interested; this would have prevented
> > confusion in the cases to which comex was assigned while supine a
> > couple months ago.
>
> At least if the player actually does judge, despite their previous
> expression of disinterest in doing so. This could equally apply to
> accidental assignment of inactive players.
>
At worst this leads to a delayed case when the inactive/disinterested
judge is recused.
> As for partnerships, there are situations in which allowing them
> to judge would not introduce any obvious conceptual unfairness (e.g.
> the AFO while I was deregistered, provided that I was the one
> writing up its decisions), but they're probably too rare to bother
> legislating. More common are situations in which a player is
> qualified to judge in eir own right (so should not get an extra
> share of the case load through a partnership), or was disqualified
> by the caller (so should not be able to circumvent that through a
> partnership), or whose attentiveness is questionable (e.g. if one of
> the silent partners of Fookiemyartug were to write up a decision).
>
I'm not suggesting partnerships be regular judges, simply eligible
judges. They would only be used in the rare cases where all other
judges have become less qualified. Hmm, that gives me an idea:
{
The Quality of an entity which is composed of one or more persons is
the average of the quality of each of those persons. Whenever an
entity composed of one or more persons would have its quality reduced,
that reduction is spread evenly among the persons which comprise it
(rounding up to the nearest integer if necessary). If the quality of
an entity can not be determined (ie because it is a private
partnership with undisclosed membership) then its quality is assumed
to be negative infinity.
}
The above could apply to both judicial panels and partnerships. Then
using the rest of what I have protoed, I think you could get away with
making partnerships regular judges and still maintaining a level of
fairness. Any comments?
BobTHJ
