Re: DIS: Quality Judge Assignment (updated)
Zefram wrote: something like "... whose Quality for that case is not within 5 of the highest Quality for that case among those eligible to be judge". "... whose Quality for that case is at least 5 less than the Quality of another eligible judge". Eagerness is an integer index with a value from 0 to 10 (inclusive), and a default value of 0. "Integer index" and attachment to persons again. With a fixed number of values, it may as well be defined as a switch. (Why haven't I ever gotten around to proposing continuously-valued switches? Proto coming up.) The Quality of an eligible judge on any given case is equal to that judge's Presence, although a judge's Quality may be modified by other rules. Still this modification language. It's messy. "The Quality ... is equal to that judge's Presence, subject to modification by other rules." (Parallelism with Rule 2166 and, more loosely, Rule 2169.) A Judge who is a player and has been recused from a case (for any reason) If e's been recused then e's no longer a judge. What if e was assigned to two cases, then recused from one but not the other? (This may be contextually obvious, but I'm too busy with other things to grok this proto in fullness right now, so I wouldn't know.) An entity comprised of two or more member persons which is an eligible judge (such as partnerships and judicial panels) is a plural judge. "Comprised of" is a messy concept here. A partnership is, legally, a contract; it's comprised of a binding document and a set of obligations between persons. I suggest that quality should be defined specially for judicial panels, and that non-first-class persons should be ineligible for all judicial work. Would it break anything if the definition of basis were generalized to judicial panels in the obvious fashion?
Re: DIS: Quality Judge Assignment (updated)
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to be
>assigned as judge of a judicial case are active players.
Should be "... are the active players.".
> The CotC SHALL NOT knowingly assign a judge to a case who
>does not share the highest Quality value for that case among eligible
>judges.
Absolutely highest Quality leaves me with very little choice of judge.
I try to assign players to appropriate cases based on their experience,
temperament, and specialist knowledge. This usually works out very well,
largely because in the early part of a posture cycle I have most of the
regulars to choose between. I think retaining this level of discretion
would be useful. So I suggest that you could relax your condition to
something like "... whose Quality for that case is not within 5 of the
highest Quality for that case among those eligible to be judge".
>Presence is an integer index with a default value of 0.
"Presence" is a poor term, conflicting with the existing use of "PRESENT"
as a vote value. Also, if it's restricted to integers then stating it
to be an index doesn't add anything.
You need to specify that each person has a Presence.
>Eagerness is an integer index with a value from 0 to 10 (inclusive),
>and a default
>value of 0.
"Integer index" and attachment to persons again.
>Quality is a number determined for each eligible judge
"Eligible judge" is a poor term, because most of the eligible are not
the judge of the case. Use "judge candidate" if you want a concise term.
> The Quality of an eligible judge on any given case is equal to
>that judge's Presence, although a judge's Quality may be modified by
>other rules.
Still this modification language. It's messy.
>Whenever a Player with a positive Eagerness has Presence less than or
>equal to 0, the Presence of each active Player is increased by eir
>Eagerness.
So if an inactive player has +ve Eagerness and -ve Presence, the active
players have their Presence increased an infinite number of times.
>announcement within one week. In addition, if that judge is a Player,
>e may set eir Eagerness to 0.
Ambiguous pronoun usage. Explicate as "... the CotC may set that judge's
Eagerness ...".
>A Judge who is a player and has been recused from a case (for any
>reason)
If e's been recused then e's no longer a judge.
>Create a rule titled "Plural Judges" with the text:
>{{
>An entity comprised of two or more member persons which is an eligible
>judge (such as partnerships and judicial panels) is a plural judge.
"Comprised of" is a messy concept here. A partnership is, legally, a
contract; it's comprised of a binding document and a set of obligations
between persons.
I suggest that quality should be defined specially for judicial panels,
and that non-first-class persons should be ineligible for all judicial
work.
>The Quality of the initiator of a judicial case is reduced by
>15.
"... for that case.". Same problem with several later amendments.
>The entities qualified to be assigned as a judge of an appeal case are
>the judicial panels consisting of three members.
"... where all members are players"?
In many places, which I haven't pointed out, you use pronouns "they"
or "it" where you should have "e". (And the same in cases other than
the nominative.)
-zefram
Re: DIS: Quality Judge Assignment (updated)
Latest Revision:
Proto-Proposal: Quality Judge Assignment
{
Replace the last three paragraphs of R1868 with:
{{
Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to be
assigned as judge of a judicial case are active players. Being
unqualified to be assigned as a judge does not
inherently prevent an entity from continuing to be judge if already
assigned. The CotC SHALL NOT knowingly assign a judge to a case who
does not share the highest Quality value for that case among eligible
judges.
}}
Rename R1871 to "Judicial Quality" and amend it to read:
{{
Presence is an integer index with a default value of 0. A natural person MAY set
eir Presence to 0 by announcement. The CotC's report includes the
Presence of each person whose Presence value is not 0.
Eagerness is an integer index with a value from 0 to 10 (inclusive),
and a default
value of 0. A first-class player MAY set eir Eagerness to any
valid value by announcement. The CotC's report includes the Eagerness
of each player.
Quality is a number determined for each eligible judge in a judicial
case. The Quality of an eligible judge on any given case is equal to
that judge's Presence, although a judge's Quality may be modified by
other rules.
When the CotC assigns an entity as a judge of a judicial case, that
entity's Presence is reduced by 3, except as described in the next
sentence. If the CotC assigns an entity consecutively to more than one judicial
case in the same announcements, and indicates in that announcement
that these are linked assignments, the entity's Presence is reduced by
2+N, where N is the number of consecutive cases they have just been
assigned to.
Whenever a Player with a positive Eagerness has Presence less than or
equal to 0, the Presence of each active Player is increased by eir
Eagerness.
When the CotC recuses a judge with cause e may reduce eir Presence by
an amount up to 20 by
announcement within one week. In addition, if that judge is a Player,
e may set eir Eagerness to 0.
A Judge who is a player and has been recused from a case (for any
reason) has its Quality reduced by 15 for that case.
}}
Create a rule titled "Plural Judges" with the text:
{{
An entity comprised of two or more member persons which is an eligible
judge (such as partnerships and judicial panels) is a plural judge.
The Quality of a plural judge is equal to the average of the Quality
of each of its members. If a plural judge would have its Presence
increased or reduced, that increase or reduction is divided equally
among each of its members (rounded to the nearest integer). If a
plural judge would receive a Quality adjustment in a particular case,
that Quality adjustment is divided equally among each of its members.
}}
Amend R591 by replacing:
{{
The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one
person from assignment as judge of the case.
}}
with:
{{
The Quality of the initiator of a judicial case is reduced by
15. In the initiating announcement the initiator CAN specify one
person whose Quality is reduced by 10 for that case.
}}
Amend R1504 by replacing:
{{
The initiator and defendant are each unqualified to be assigned
as judge of the case. During the pre-trial phase, the defendant
CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case,
by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is
recused.
}}
with:
{{
The Quality of the initiator of a criminal case is reduced by 10, and the
Quality of the defendant is reduced by 20. During the pre-trial phase,
the Defendant CAN name one person whose Quality is reduced by 10 for
the purpose of determining judge eligibility for that case.
}}
Amend R2169 by replacing:
{{
The parties to the contract are all unqualified to be assigned
as judge of the case.
}}
with:
{{
The parties to the contract in an equity case have their Quality
reduced by 10 with the exception of the initiator who has eir Quality
reduced by 15.
}}
In R911 replace:
{{
The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case
are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each
of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior
case and none of the members is the prior judge.
}}
with:
{{
The entities qualified to be assigned as a judge of an appeal case are
the judicial panels consisting of three members. For the purposes of
determining judge
eligibility in appeal cases:
* The prior judge of the case has eir Quality reduced by 20.
* The Player who called for appeal has eir Quality reduced by 10.
* Any Player who supported or objected to the call for appeal has eir
Quality reduced by 5.
}}
}
BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Quality Judge Assignment (updated)
On Nov 29, 2007 1:39 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What happens in this case when the partnership's quality is reduced? > Is the alien's quality reduced like any other member's, or is the > reduction spread over only the player members? Actually, I guess it clearly needs to be over only the player members. Otherwise the aliens can just reset their qualities to 0 each time, and the reduction on the partnership is lessened. This means that a partnership consisting only of aliens would never have its quality reduced, but that partnership's quality is just 0 anyway. -root
Re: DIS: Quality Judge Assignment (updated)
On Nov 29, 2007 1:31 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quality for all natural persons can be defaulted to 0 with only active > players eligible to be assigned as judges. This would allow > partnerships containing aliens to judge (albeit less often than if > they were players). What happens in this case when the partnership's quality is reduced? Is the alien's quality reduced like any other member's, or is the reduction spread over only the player members? -root
Re: DIS: Quality Judge Assignment (updated)
On Nov 29, 2007 1:27 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007 1:19 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > {
> > The Quality of an entity which is composed of one or more persons is
> > the average of the quality of each of those persons. Whenever an
> > entity composed of one or more persons would have its quality reduced,
> > that reduction is spread evenly among the persons which comprise it
> > (rounding up to the nearest integer if necessary). If the quality of
> > an entity can not be determined (ie because it is a private
> > partnership with undisclosed membership) then its quality is assumed
> > to be negative infinity.
> > }
>
> e.g., not ie
>
> > The above could apply to both judicial panels and partnerships. Then
> > using the rest of what I have protoed, I think you could get away with
> > making partnerships regular judges and still maintaining a level of
> > fairness. Any comments?
>
> So partnerships that include aliens would have quality of negative infinity?
>
Quality for all natural persons can be defaulted to 0 with only active
players eligible to be assigned as judges. This would allow
partnerships containing aliens to judge (albeit less often than if
they were players).
BobTHJ
BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Quality Judge Assignment (updated)
On Nov 29, 2007 1:19 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> {
> The Quality of an entity which is composed of one or more persons is
> the average of the quality of each of those persons. Whenever an
> entity composed of one or more persons would have its quality reduced,
> that reduction is spread evenly among the persons which comprise it
> (rounding up to the nearest integer if necessary). If the quality of
> an entity can not be determined (ie because it is a private
> partnership with undisclosed membership) then its quality is assumed
> to be negative infinity.
> }
e.g., not ie
> The above could apply to both judicial panels and partnerships. Then
> using the rest of what I have protoed, I think you could get away with
> making partnerships regular judges and still maintaining a level of
> fairness. Any comments?
So partnerships that include aliens would have quality of negative infinity?
-root
Re: DIS: Quality Judge Assignment (updated)
On Nov 29, 2007 1:05 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At least if the player actually does judge, despite their previous > expression of disinterest in doing so. This could equally apply to > accidental assignment of inactive players. Due to the nature of inactivity, I think it's less likely that a legally inactive player would be reported as active and would judge without noticing the mistake. But as Registrar, my view on this may be skewed. -root
Re: DIS: Quality Judge Assignment (updated)
On Nov 29, 2007 1:05 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Partnerships should never be qualified to judge, period.
> > Inactive players are unlikely to actually judge a case mistakenly
> > assigned to them.
> >
> > It may be worthwhile to let the assignment stand if the player is
> > first-class and active but not interested; this would have prevented
> > confusion in the cases to which comex was assigned while supine a
> > couple months ago.
>
> At least if the player actually does judge, despite their previous
> expression of disinterest in doing so. This could equally apply to
> accidental assignment of inactive players.
>
At worst this leads to a delayed case when the inactive/disinterested
judge is recused.
> As for partnerships, there are situations in which allowing them
> to judge would not introduce any obvious conceptual unfairness (e.g.
> the AFO while I was deregistered, provided that I was the one
> writing up its decisions), but they're probably too rare to bother
> legislating. More common are situations in which a player is
> qualified to judge in eir own right (so should not get an extra
> share of the case load through a partnership), or was disqualified
> by the caller (so should not be able to circumvent that through a
> partnership), or whose attentiveness is questionable (e.g. if one of
> the silent partners of Fookiemyartug were to write up a decision).
>
I'm not suggesting partnerships be regular judges, simply eligible
judges. They would only be used in the rare cases where all other
judges have become less qualified. Hmm, that gives me an idea:
{
The Quality of an entity which is composed of one or more persons is
the average of the quality of each of those persons. Whenever an
entity composed of one or more persons would have its quality reduced,
that reduction is spread evenly among the persons which comprise it
(rounding up to the nearest integer if necessary). If the quality of
an entity can not be determined (ie because it is a private
partnership with undisclosed membership) then its quality is assumed
to be negative infinity.
}
The above could apply to both judicial panels and partnerships. Then
using the rest of what I have protoed, I think you could get away with
making partnerships regular judges and still maintaining a level of
fairness. Any comments?
BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Quality Judge Assignment (updated)
On Nov 29, 2007 11:39 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Roger Hicks wrote: > >In my estimation that deters from one of the strengths of this system. > >All Players (or all possible judicial panels) are qualified judges, > >even those who are second-class or not presently interested in > >judging. > > My suggestion retains that aspect of your proposal. It would make it > more explicit, even. > I apologize. I mis-read your comment. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Quality Judge Assignment (updated)
root wrote: On Nov 29, 2007 11:12 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In my estimation that deters from one of the strengths of this system. All Players (or all possible judicial panels) are qualified judges, even those who are second-class or not presently interested in judging. Will they ever be assigned? They shouldn't if things are working correctly. However, history seems to indicate that things can go wrong. When they do go wrong, it would be beneficial to have these "non-judges" still qualified to judge. Partnerships should never be qualified to judge, period. Inactive players are unlikely to actually judge a case mistakenly assigned to them. It may be worthwhile to let the assignment stand if the player is first-class and active but not interested; this would have prevented confusion in the cases to which comex was assigned while supine a couple months ago. At least if the player actually does judge, despite their previous expression of disinterest in doing so. This could equally apply to accidental assignment of inactive players. As for partnerships, there are situations in which allowing them to judge would not introduce any obvious conceptual unfairness (e.g. the AFO while I was deregistered, provided that I was the one writing up its decisions), but they're probably too rare to bother legislating. More common are situations in which a player is qualified to judge in eir own right (so should not get an extra share of the case load through a partnership), or was disqualified by the caller (so should not be able to circumvent that through a partnership), or whose attentiveness is questionable (e.g. if one of the silent partners of Fookiemyartug were to write up a decision).
Re: DIS: Quality Judge Assignment (updated)
Roger Hicks wrote: >In my estimation that deters from one of the strengths of this system. >All Players (or all possible judicial panels) are qualified judges, >even those who are second-class or not presently interested in >judging. My suggestion retains that aspect of your proposal. It would make it more explicit, even. -zefram
Re: DIS: Quality Judge Assignment (updated)
On Nov 29, 2007 11:12 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In my estimation that deters from one of the strengths of this system. > All Players (or all possible judicial panels) are qualified judges, > even those who are second-class or not presently interested in > judging. Will they ever be assigned? They shouldn't if things are > working correctly. However, history seems to indicate that things can > go wrong. When they do go wrong, it would be beneficial to have these > "non-judges" still qualified to judge. Partnerships should never be qualified to judge, period. Inactive players are unlikely to actually judge a case mistakenly assigned to them. It may be worthwhile to let the assignment stand if the player is first-class and active but not interested; this would have prevented confusion in the cases to which comex was assigned while supine a couple months ago. -root
Re: DIS: Quality Judge Assignment (updated)
On Nov 29, 2007 10:59 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Roger Hicks wrote: > >What if we revised the assignment provision to read "The CotC SHALL > >NOT knowingly assign an unqualified judge to a case." This would > >prevent assignments of unqualified judges from being later found > >invalid. > > I think that's basically what you'll have to do, but don't overload > the term "qualified" for this. The qualified judges, as "qualified" is > presently defined, are all the (active) players, or (on appeals) all the > judicial panels of three (active) players. This concept of "qualified" > is useful and should have a CAN/CANNOT provision tied to it. What you're > trying to call "qualified" in your proto, the entity that *should* be > assigned, should have a different term and this SHALL/SHALL NOT provision. > In my estimation that deters from one of the strengths of this system. All Players (or all possible judicial panels) are qualified judges, even those who are second-class or not presently interested in judging. Will they ever be assigned? They shouldn't if things are working correctly. However, history seems to indicate that things can go wrong. When they do go wrong, it would be beneficial to have these "non-judges" still qualified to judge. > >I'm not sure I follow your last sentence. Can you give me an example? > > Thus the general judge assignment rule doesn't need to know about > judicial panels. > Ah, thanks! I get it now. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Quality Judge Assignment (updated)
Roger Hicks wrote: >What if we revised the assignment provision to read "The CotC SHALL >NOT knowingly assign an unqualified judge to a case." This would >prevent assignments of unqualified judges from being later found >invalid. I think that's basically what you'll have to do, but don't overload the term "qualified" for this. The qualified judges, as "qualified" is presently defined, are all the (active) players, or (on appeals) all the judicial panels of three (active) players. This concept of "qualified" is useful and should have a CAN/CANNOT provision tied to it. What you're trying to call "qualified" in your proto, the entity that *should* be assigned, should have a different term and this SHALL/SHALL NOT provision. >I'm not sure I follow your last sentence. Can you give me an example? You have something like Judge assignments: When a person is assigned as a judge, eir quality is reduced by 3. When a judicial panel is assigned as a judge, each of its members has eir quality reduced by 1. Judicial panels: The quality of a judicial panel is the sum of the quality of its members. I propose that a better factorisation is: Judge assignments: When an entity is assigned as a judge, eir quality is reduced by 3. Judicial panels: The quality of a judicial panel is the sum of the quality of its members. If a modification is applied to the quality of a panel, that modification is shared out equally among the panel's members. Thus the general judge assignment rule doesn't need to know about judicial panels. -zefram
Re: DIS: Quality Judge Assignment (updated)
On Nov 29, 2007 10:19 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Roger Hicks wrote: > >Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to be > >assigned as judge of a judicial case are those who share the highest > >Quality value. > > Bad idea. Quality records are likely to get out of synch with reality, > as for example happened to OscarMeyr's posture two days ago. Under > your system, a mistake in recording quality means that future judge > assignments are invalid and don't occur, which means an awful lot of > state recalculation when the error is discovered. Under the present > system a mistake in posture means that future judge assignments or (as > in the recent case) rotations are illegal but still valid, so subsequent > judicial activity continues much as we perceive it to be. > What if we revised the assignment provision to read "The CotC SHALL NOT knowingly assign an unqualified judge to a case." This would prevent assignments of unqualified judges from being later found invalid. > >Repeal R1871. > > I'd prefer that the rule be reused by the replacement rotation mechanism. > There's a lot of history in these rule numbers, and the association of > 1871 with judge rotation is useful to maintain for mnemonic value. (The > astute may have noticed that my judicial reform proposal systematically > repealed the rules that were enacted by, and so numerically associated > with, Kelly's reforms in the 1990s. Same principle applied to a contrary > objective.) > Sounds reasonable. > >If this would cause that Player's Quality to be less than or equal to > >0, each active Player's Quality is increased by eir Eagerness. > > This increase might need to be done multiple times to get all qualities > non-negative. Better to put it into a separate provision, I think, > in case quality decreases from a different cause are later introduced. > In fact, you had to repeat it in the next two paragraphs, so it's already > an obvious candidate for factoring out. > Good point. > > By the way, on naming: "quality" makes some kind of sense for an > individual case, but not for the running score. I think it's insulting > in the latter role. I suggest "turniness" or something akin for the > running score. If something is to be called "quality" it should probably > be the per-CFJ adjustments. Then the score that is used in actually > assigning a judge is probably "qualifitude", and is the sum of (per-CFJ) > quality and (running) turniness. > Thanks, I may borrow some of your terms. > >The Quality of a Judicial Panel is the sum of the Quality of its members. > > This is an interesting concept, which could do with being expanded. > You've protoed a specific provision for reducing a person's quality > when assigned to a case as part of a panel. You could do this more > neatly in the panel rule, by saying that adjustments made to a panel's > quality (or, in my separated version, turniness) are shared out among > the panel members. By running this derived panel quality in reverse, > you would avoid needing special cases in other rules. I'm not sure I follow your last sentence. Can you give me an example? > > >f) A Player MAY spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase another > >Player's Quality by N. > > Bad idea. Players can influence their quality quite a lot for free > through eagerness anyway. I think this is something that conceptually > should not be influenced by currency holdings, particularly ones that > are mainly tied to voting. Also, practically, let's not have uncertainty > in VCs cause uncertainty in judge assignments. The courts need to work > reliably even when much of the game state is unknown. > Since this seems to be a bit more controversial I think I'll break it out into a separate proposal. However, I do think the occasional "fixing" of judge assignments would make for interesting play, if it could be done in such a way as to not break the judicial system. Presently, only the CotC has the power to fix a judicial assignment. While I believe you have made efforts to fairly assign judges, it would be nice if this power were shared around to all players in a limited fashion. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Quality Judge Assignment (updated)
Roger Hicks wrote: >Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to be >assigned as judge of a judicial case are those who share the highest >Quality value. Bad idea. Quality records are likely to get out of synch with reality, as for example happened to OscarMeyr's posture two days ago. Under your system, a mistake in recording quality means that future judge assignments are invalid and don't occur, which means an awful lot of state recalculation when the error is discovered. Under the present system a mistake in posture means that future judge assignments or (as in the recent case) rotations are illegal but still valid, so subsequent judicial activity continues much as we perceive it to be. Furthermore, an inaccurate quality stays inaccurate indefinitely. The most common type of posture inaccuracy, recording sitting for standing or vice versa, heals itself at the next rotation. >Repeal R1871. I'd prefer that the rule be reused by the replacement rotation mechanism. There's a lot of history in these rule numbers, and the association of 1871 with judge rotation is useful to maintain for mnemonic value. (The astute may have noticed that my judicial reform proposal systematically repealed the rules that were enacted by, and so numerically associated with, Kelly's reforms in the 1990s. Same principle applied to a contrary objective.) >Quality is a Player index I don't think the construction "Player index" is supported by the rules. We have "Player switch", but the switch rule specifically refers to switches being possessed by specific classes of entities. > A Player MAY set >eir Quality to 0 by announcement. "CAN", please, since that's the important bit. >Eagerness is a Player index with a value from 0 to 10, and a default >value of 0. A first-class Player MAY set eir Eagerness index to any >valid value by announcement. Do you intend to allow non-integer values? >If this would cause that Player's Quality to be less than or equal to >0, each active Player's Quality is increased by eir Eagerness. This increase might need to be done multiple times to get all qualities non-negative. Better to put it into a separate provision, I think, in case quality decreases from a different cause are later introduced. In fact, you had to repeat it in the next two paragraphs, so it's already an obvious candidate for factoring out. What are the intended invariants? Should a player with positive eagerness always have positive quality too? >A Judge who is a player and has been recused from a case (for any >reason) has their >Quality value reduced by 20 for the purposes of determining >eligibility of judges in that case. This system of quality modifications for the purposes of a particular case sounds like you've got two concepts being shoehorned into one name. I suggest that you separate it into the persistent running score and a distinct per-CFJ derived quantity. By the way, on naming: "quality" makes some kind of sense for an individual case, but not for the running score. I think it's insulting in the latter role. I suggest "turniness" or something akin for the running score. If something is to be called "quality" it should probably be the per-CFJ adjustments. Then the score that is used in actually assigning a judge is probably "qualifitude", and is the sum of (per-CFJ) quality and (running) turniness. >The Quality of a Judicial Panel is the sum of the Quality of its members. This is an interesting concept, which could do with being expanded. You've protoed a specific provision for reducing a person's quality when assigned to a case as part of a panel. You could do this more neatly in the panel rule, by saying that adjustments made to a panel's quality (or, in my separated version, turniness) are shared out among the panel members. By running this derived panel quality in reverse, you would avoid needing special cases in other rules. >f) A Player MAY spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase another >Player's Quality by N. Bad idea. Players can influence their quality quite a lot for free through eagerness anyway. I think this is something that conceptually should not be influenced by currency holdings, particularly ones that are mainly tied to voting. Also, practically, let's not have uncertainty in VCs cause uncertainty in judge assignments. The courts need to work reliably even when much of the game state is unknown. -zefram
Re: DIS: Quality Judge Assignment
On Nov 28, 2007 11:31 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BobTHJ wrote: > > > Proto-Proposal: Quality Judge Assignment > > I suspect that this would be a PITA to add to the CotC DB. Would it > be a big deal if it failed to reflect this stuff? > I think as long as it was included in the regular CotC report it would be fine. I thought about adding a reporting requirement, but I wasn't sure where to put it. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Quality Judge Assignment
BobTHJ wrote: Proto-Proposal: Quality Judge Assignment I suspect that this would be a PITA to add to the CotC DB. Would it be a big deal if it failed to reflect this stuff?
DIS: Quality Judge Assignment (updated)
Proto-Proposal: Quality Judge Assignment
{
Amend R1868 by replacing the fourth paragraph with:
{{
Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to be
assigned as judge of a judicial case are those who share the highest
Quality value. Being unqualified to be assigned as a judge does not
inherently prevent an entity from continuing to be judge if already
assigned.
}}
Remove the 5th & 6th paragraphs of R1868.
Repeal R1871.
Create a new rule titled "Judicial Quality" with the following text:
{{
Quality is a Player index with a default value of 0. A Player MAY set
eir Quality to 0 by announcement.
Eagerness is a Player index with a value from 0 to 10, and a default
value of 0. A first-class Player MAY set eir Eagerness index to any
valid value by announcement.
The CotC's report includes the Quality and Eagerness of every player.
When the CotC assigns a Player as a judge of a judicial case, that
Player's Quality is reduced by 3, except as described in the next
paragraph. If this would cause that Player's Quality to be less than or equal to
0, each active Player's Quality is increased by eir Eagerness.
If the CotC assigns a Player consecutively to more than one judicial
case in the same announcements, and indicates in that announcement
that these are linked assignments, the Player's Quality is reduced by
2+N, where N is the number of consecutive cases they have just been
assigned to. If this would cause that Player's Quality to be less than
or equal to
0, each active Player's Quality is increased by eir Eagerness.
I the CotC assigns a Judicial Panel as a judge of a judicial case,
each Player who is a member of that panel has eir Quality reduced by
2. If this would cause any of those Player's Quality to be less than
or equal to 0, each active Player's Quality is increased by eir
Eagerness.
When the CotC recuses a judge with cause, e MAY set that Player's
Eagerness to 0 and reduce eir Quality by an amount up to 20 by
announcement within one week.
A Judge who is a player and has been recused from a case (for any
reason) has their
Quality value reduced by 20 for the purposes of determining
eligibility of judges in that case.
A Player who is a member of a judicial panel that was recused from a
case (for any reason) has their Quality value reduced by 3 for the
purposes of determining eligibility of judges in that case.
}}
Append to R2157:
{{
The Quality of a Judicial Panel is the sum of the Quality of its members.
}}
Amend R591 by replacing:
{{
The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one
person from assignment as judge of the case.
}}
with:
{{
For the purpose of determining judge eligibility for a specific
inquiry case, the Quality of the initiator of that case is reduced by
15. In the initiating announcement the initiator CAN specify one
person whose Quality is reduced by 10 for the purpose of determining
judge eligibility in that case.
}}
Amend R1504 by replacing:
{{
The initiator and defendant are each unqualified to be assigned
as judge of the case. During the pre-trial phase, the defendant
CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case,
by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is
recused.
}}
with:
{{
For the purpose of determining judge eligibility for a specific
criminal case, the Quality of the initiator is reduced by 10, and the
Quality of the defendant is reduced by 20. During the pre-trial phase,
the Defendant CAN name one person whose Quality is reduced by 10 for
the purpose of determining judge eligibility for that case.
}}
Amend R2169 by replacing:
{{
The parties to the contract are all unqualified to be assigned
as judge of the case.
}}
with:
{{
For the purpose of determining judge eligibility for a specific equity
case, the parties to the contract in that case have their Quality
reduced by 10 with the exception of the initiator who has eir quality
reduced by 15.
}}
In R911 replace:
{{
The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case
are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each
of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior
case and none of the members is the prior judge.
}}
with:
{{
The entities qualified to be assigned as a judge of an appeal case are
the judicial panels consisting of three members whose share the
highest Quality value. For the purposes of determining judge
eligibility in appeal cases:
* The prior judge of the case has eir Quality reduced by 20.
* The Player who called for appeal has eir Quality reduced by 10.
* Any Player who supported or objected to the call for appeal has eir
Quality reduced by 5.
}}
Amend R2126 by adding to the list of ways Voting Credits may be spent
(after section e and before section z):
{{
f) A Player MAY spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase another
Player's Quality by N.
g) A Player MAY spend N+3 VC
Re: DIS: Quality Judge Assignment
On Nov 28, 2007 10:58 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 28, 2007 10:39 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > When the CotC assigns a Player as a judge of a judicial case, that > > Player's Quality is reduced by 3, except as described in the next > > paragraph. If this would cause that Player's Quality to be less than > > 0, each active Player's Quality is increased by eir Eagerness. > > "less than or equal to 0". Otherwise, the highest quality could be 0, > which could result in the assignment of a player not interested in > judging. > Good point. Although one of the objectives when coming up with this system was to ensure that there always was a qualified judge for any case. If it were set to less than or equal to 0, then players not interested in judging would only be qualified in the rare case where every other judge somehow had their Quality reduced, which makes sense. > > > f) A Player MAY spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase another > > Player's Quality by N. > > > > g) A Player MAY spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase eir own > > Quality by N. > > > > h) A Player MAY spend N VCs of different colors to decrease another > > Player's Quality by N. > > These would make it too easy to hand-pick a judge for a case, IMO. > Easy, but costly (perhaps the costs need to be bumped up a bit). In rare cases it would allow a little gerrymandering of the judge selection process. However, due to the VC cost, and the diminishing Quality from judging, it couldn't be used easily in succession, and even when used it can easily be counteracted by another player. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Quality Judge Assignment
On Nov 28, 2007 10:39 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Amend R1868 by replacing the fourth paragraph with:
> {{
> Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to be
> assigned as judge of a judicial case are those who share the highest
> Quality value. Being unqualified to be assigned as a judge does not
> inherently prevent an entity from continuing to be judge if already
> assigned.
> }}
[SNIP]
> Quality is a Player index with a default value of 0. A Player MAY set
> eir Quality to 0 by announcement.
[SNIP]
> When the CotC assigns a Player as a judge of a judicial case, that
> Player's Quality is reduced by 3, except as described in the next
> paragraph. If this would cause that Player's Quality to be less than
> 0, each active Player's Quality is increased by eir Eagerness.
"less than or equal to 0". Otherwise, the highest quality could be 0,
which could result in the assignment of a player not interested in
judging.
> f) A Player MAY spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase another
> Player's Quality by N.
>
> g) A Player MAY spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase eir own
> Quality by N.
>
> h) A Player MAY spend N VCs of different colors to decrease another
> Player's Quality by N.
These would make it too easy to hand-pick a judge for a case, IMO.
-root
DIS: Quality Judge Assignment
Proto-Proposal: Quality Judge Assignment
{
Amend R1868 by replacing the fourth paragraph with:
{{
Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to be
assigned as judge of a judicial case are those who share the highest
Quality value. Being unqualified to be assigned as a judge does not
inherently prevent an entity from continuing to be judge if already
assigned.
}}
Remove the 5th & 6th paragraphs of R1868.
Repeal R1871.
Create a new rule titled "Judicial Quality" with the following text:
{{
Quality is a Player index with a default value of 0. A Player MAY set
eir Quality to 0 by announcement.
Eagerness is a Player index with a value from 0 to 10, and a default
value of 0. A first-class Player MAY set eir Eagerness index to any
valid value by announcement.
The CotC's report includes the Quality and Eagerness of every player.
When the CotC assigns a Player as a judge of a judicial case, that
Player's Quality is reduced by 3, except as described in the next
paragraph. If this would cause that Player's Quality to be less than
0, each active Player's Quality is increased by eir Eagerness.
If the CotC assigns a Player consecutively to more than one judicial
case in the same announcements, and indicates in that announcement
that these are linked assignments, the Player's Quality is reduced by
2+N, where N is the number of consecutive cases they have just been
assigned to. If this would cause that Player's Quality to be less than
0, each active Player's Quality is increased by eir Eagerness.
When the CotC recuses a judge with cause, he MAY set that Player's
Eagerness to 0 and reduce eir Quality by an amount up to 20 by
announcement within one week.
A Judge who has been recused from a case (for any reason) has their
Quality value reduced by 20 for the purposes of determining
eligibility of judges in that case.
}}
Append to R2157:
{{
The Quality of a Judicial Panel is the sum of the Quality of its members.
}}
Amend R591 by replacing:
{{
The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one
person from assignment as judge of the case.
}}
with:
{{
For the purpose of determining judge eligibility for a specific
inquiry case, the Quality of the initiator of that case is reduced by
15. In the initiating announcement the initiator CAN specify one
person whose Quality is reduced by 10 for the purpose of determining
judge eligibility in that case.
}}
Amend R1504 by replacing:
{{
The initiator and defendant are each unqualified to be assigned
as judge of the case. During the pre-trial phase, the defendant
CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case,
by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is
recused.
}}
with:
{{
For the purpose of determining judge eligibility for a specific
criminal case, the Quality of the initiator is reduced by 10, and the
Quality of the defendant is reduced by 20. During the pre-trial phase,
the Defendant CAN name one person whose Quality is reduced by 10 for
the purpose of determining judge eligibility for that case.
}}
Amend R2169 by replacing:
{{
The parties to the contract are all unqualified to be assigned
as judge of the case.
}}
with:
{{
For the purpose of determining judge eligibility for a specific equity
case, the parties to the contract in that case have their Quality
reduced by 10 with the exception of the initiator who has eir quality
reduced by 15.
}}
In R911 replace:
{{
The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case
are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each
of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior
case and none of the members is the prior judge.
}}
with:
{{
The entities qualified to be assigned as a judge of an appeal case are
the judicial panels consisting of three members whose share the
highest Quality value. For the purposes of determining judge
eligibility in appeal cases:
* The prior judge of the case has eir Quality reduced by 20.
* The Player who called for appeal has eir Quality reduced by 10.
* Any Player who supported or objected to the call for appeal has eir
Quality reduced by 5.
}}
Amend R2126 by adding to the list of ways Voting Credits may be spent
(after section e and before section z):
{{
f) A Player MAY spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase another
Player's Quality by N.
g) A Player MAY spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase eir own
Quality by N.
h) A Player MAY spend N VCs of different colors to decrease another
Player's Quality by N.
}}
}
BobTHJ
