Zefram wrote:
something like "... whose Quality for that case is not within 5 of the
highest Quality for that case among those eligible to be judge".
"... whose Quality for that case is at least 5 less than the Quality
of another eligible judge".
Eagerness is an integer index with a value from 0 to 10 (inclusive),
and a default
value of 0.
"Integer index" and attachment to persons again.
With a fixed number of values, it may as well be defined as a
switch. (Why haven't I ever gotten around to proposing
continuously-valued switches? Proto coming up.)
The Quality of an eligible judge on any given case is equal to
that judge's Presence, although a judge's Quality may be modified by
other rules.
Still this modification language. It's messy.
"The Quality ... is equal to that judge's Presence, subject to
modification by other rules." (Parallelism with Rule 2166 and,
more loosely, Rule 2169.)
A Judge who is a player and has been recused from a case (for any
reason)
If e's been recused then e's no longer a judge.
What if e was assigned to two cases, then recused from one but
not the other? (This may be contextually obvious, but I'm too
busy with other things to grok this proto in fullness right now,
so I wouldn't know.)
An entity comprised of two or more member persons which is an eligible
judge (such as partnerships and judicial panels) is a plural judge.
"Comprised of" is a messy concept here. A partnership is, legally, a
contract; it's comprised of a binding document and a set of obligations
between persons.
I suggest that quality should be defined specially for judicial panels,
and that non-first-class persons should be ineligible for all judicial
work.
Would it break anything if the definition of basis were generalized
to judicial panels in the obvious fashion?
