4st nomic via agora-discussion [2023-06-26 10:33]: > As herald, I have ultimate control over this process. If someone's > judgement is "preventative", then hopefully, that will be apparent from > their response, and I can respond with a nomination anyways.
That is a terrible solution. I'd argue is even more of a problem. And despite having control over the process, it is not the Herald's place to determine the criteria. > A specified degree CAN be awarded by any player other than the > awardee, with 2 Agoran consent. It SHOULD only be awarded for the > publication of an original thesis of scholarly worth (including > responses to peer-review), published with explicit intent to > qualify for a degree. The Herald SHOULD coordinate the peer-review > process and the awarding of degrees. The Herald is not even vested with any power. The only distinction between your office and every other player is that you have a positive encouragement to be proactive in *coordinating* peer-review. It is not up to the Herald to determine criteria for aproval. The rules already do it. And they demand “scholarly worth”, which can only be determined with plenty of time for analysis, congruent with the text's length and complexity. In any case, if the thesis *can't* be evaluated in a week, the default should be to throw it out for being badly written, not accepting it. > Thesises have not be rewarded in a long time, nor really even *attempted* > to, and I find this to be wrong. In an effort to make the game easier and > more approachable, I am planning to err on the side of the submitter. This is not reasonable. If you want to make it easier, put work into designing easier criteria. That is a legislative prerogative. Besides, if thesis are not attempted, I guarantee you can think of better strategies for encouraging it. For peer-review, quality should be above anything else. Otherwise, it is irrelevant and performative. -- juan
