On Sun, 23 Jul 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > On 07/18/2017 09:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > A person whose Vexity is zero may initiate a Call for Judgement by > announcement. A person whose Vexity is not zero may initiate a Call > for Judgement with N Agoran Support, where N is the value of that > person's Vexity switch. > > The fact that there are circumstances in which a person CANNOT initiate > a CFJ on eir own is pretty clearly a violation of R217, IMO. It's a > direct Rules to the Contrary Notwithstanding requirement that a person > be able to do this. > > Initiate to later have dismissed? Fine. Not able to initiate without > another player's intervention? Not fine I would guess. > > > I've been wondering about this in the context of the economy overhaul: In it > *players* need to use shinies or AP to initiate > CFJs, but *persons* can do it for free if they aren't a player. Does that > pass R217's bar [1]? > > [1] "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any rule change that would (1) > prevent a person from initiating a formal process to > resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable expectation that the > controversy will thereby be resolved; or (2) prevent a > person from causing formal reconsideration of any judicial determination that > e should be punished, is wholly void and without > effect."
The rules currently allow for up to a 14 day delay (week for the Arbitor to assign, week for judge to judge). CFJ 2060 noted that delays imposed on the player that were generally shorter or same magnitude as this time frame were not unduly limiting- I think waiting for weekly Action Points is within this standard. The reason the Support thing seems different to me is it requires others (that is a person cannot do it on their own, and could be blocked indefinitely).
