BobTHJ wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 07:18, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Presumably the idea is that high-rank cases would be more difficult, >> complicated and time-consuming to judge, whereas low-rank cases would be >> for typical CFJspam. The problem now is for people to decide which cases >> are important, hard to judge, and landmark-setting, and which ones are >> just spam; everyone thinks their own CFJs are important, often... >> -- > > I personally dislike judging the spammy CFJs with little or no effect > on the game, but enjoy judging those CFJs which are truly > controversial. Under such a system I would prefer to only judge cases > with interest level > 1. NOTE: I have been criticized for expressing > this preference in the past.
If this passes, then I'll generally assign high-II cases first and assign high-JR players to those cases first (similar to current practice with criminal/equity cases and hanging judges), so you would have at least a somewhat better shot of getting what you want.
