On 6/11/2020 4:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 6/11/2020 4:05 PM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Thursday, 11 June 2020, 23:32:12 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-business >> <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: >>> Gratuitous: >>> >>> The Pineapple Partnership was judged to be a person at the time the case >>> was assigned, and the Rules of the time made em a person [cites later]. >>> So it was a legal judgement of the time (which closed the case). Making >>> the PP cease to be a person (which happened later) did not re-open the case. >> >> Gratuitous: The case isn't open, but nothing says that only /open/ cases >> require a judge. Closed cases also require a judge, if they don't have one. >> >> This is likely a bug that should be fixed. >> > > Well, it's down to Switches again. > > The PP history is unclear, but it definitely ceased being a person by 2014 > (when personhood for contracts was removed). Judicial assignment at the > time read: > > At any time, a judicial case either has no judge assigned to it > (default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge. > This is a persistent status that changes only according to the > rules. > > When a judicial case is open and has no judge assigned, the CotC > CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by announcement, > and SHALL do so in a timely fashion. > > Now, there were other rules that said the CotC could only *assign* an > eligible player to judge. But once assigned, the "one entity" made it > pretty clear that personhood didn't matter and the assigned entity stayed > the judge even if e ceased to be a person. This seems to be true up > through late 2018 - then (my fault of course!!!) I proposed making it a > switch. > >> Amended(30) by P8134 'The judge switch' (G.), 02 Dec 2018 > > Here's the full text of that proposal, note the "explicit setting" of the > judge switch after the rule change. (Of course that setting would have > reverted to default for non-persons, making my final comment inside this > proposal a bit untrue, to say the least!) > > How about an amendment that change "person" to "current or former person" > in the possible switch values? (and retroactively makes those non-persons > judges again). > > ----------------------------------------- > Amend R991 (Calls for Judgement) by replacing the paragraph beginning > "When a CFJ has no judge assigned" with the following text: > > Judge is an untracked CFJ switch with possible values of any > person or "unassigned" (default). To "assign" a CFJ to a person > is to flip that CFJ's judge to that person. To "remove" or > "recuse" a person from a being the judge of a CFJ is to flip that > CFJ's judge from that person to unassigned. > > When a CFJ's judge is unassigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any > eligible player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so > in a timely fashion. The players eligible to be assigned as judge > are all active players except the initiator and the person barred > (if any). The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all > interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge. > If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to judge > that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3 Objections. > > > [I think all instances of judge assignment/removal work with the > above definitions, without further modification]. > > For every CFJ that was assigned to a judge immediately before this > proposal took effect, that CFJ's judge switch is flipped to that > judge. > > [Note: all old cases - however old - are still considered to have > their last-assigned judge (judges are not "removed" when a case is > closed). This is true both before and after this proposal]. > -------------------------------------------- >
Additional comment: the reason for the change in 2018 was in fact a bug - that the previous version didn't explicitly limit CFJs from having more than one judge. The Arbitor could only *assign* a judge to a case without a judge, so it hadn't come up, but then Certiorari was introduced which allowed the PM to make emself a judge - but nothing in the rules said that Cert removed the previous judge. Hence the uniqueness of switch values for tracking a judge seemed useful, it made Cert work without amending it :)
