On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 10:41 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Looking at that one, the only fail/success mechanism *is* by announcement, > so that's the only basis for judging whether a judicial assignment > succeeds. > > The requirement for the Arbitor to have further procedure to ensure > fairness is a SHALL, not a CAN. Which means we treat failure to live > up to the SHALL in a criminal sense, where context (intent, informal > procedure to mitigate the effects of breaking the SHALL, impact of > violation) can in fact be used.
Ah right. So what you're focusing on is processes that actually are defined in the rules, and what they're used for. What I'm interested in is hypothetical processes. If the rule said something other than what it did, would the process be considered valid under R105 for a rules change? I know you consider By Announcement invalid, and suspect you'd consider With Notice to be fine. But what is it about a process that makes it R105-noticeworthy? The fact that it must give notice? The fact that it can give notice? The fact that it did give notice, at any given time? Then, if you move the process out of the rule, what happens? Does the fact that the rule not /require/ that a notice-giving process be used mean that a notice-giving process can't be used? I think we probably disagree on whether a process necessarily has to be part of the ruleset or not. I think that processes exist independently of the ruleset, and it's up to individual rules as to which processes they want to enforce. You presumably think something can't be a process unless it's encoded in the rules (in which case, the Arbitor judge assignment process is a pure CAN by announcement, with no additional restrictions)? -- ais523
