DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 23:35 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: Create a rule titled Interest Index of Judicial Cases with Power 1.5 and this text: Each judicial case has an interest index, which CAN be set by its initiator at the time of initiation, and CAN be changed by any player without 3 objections, or by the Clerk of the Courts or Justiciar without 2 objections. The second half of this is redundant; w3o is easier than w2o, not harder, so the CotC would just use the first method rather than the second method. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 07:18, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Presumably the idea is that high-rank cases would be more difficult, complicated and time-consuming to judge, whereas low-rank cases would be for typical CFJspam. The problem now is for people to decide which cases are important, hard to judge, and landmark-setting, and which ones are just spam; everyone thinks their own CFJs are important, often... -- I personally dislike judging the spammy CFJs with little or no effect on the game, but enjoy judging those CFJs which are truly controversial. Under such a system I would prefer to only judge cases with interest level 1. NOTE: I have been criticized for expressing this preference in the past. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity
BobTHJ wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 00:35, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Create a rule titled Judicial Rank with Power 1.5 and this text: Judicial rank is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the Courts, with the same range and default as interest indices. A player is poorly qualified to judge judicial cases whose interest index exceeds eir judicial rank. This seems backward to me. Wouldn't more judges be interested in higher interest cases instead of less? The idea is that higher interest = higher complexity. Thus, rank 1 = I can handle judging simple cases for low pay, rank 3 = I can handle judging complex cases for high pay. Hmm, one more tweak coming up.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity
BobTHJ wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 07:18, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Presumably the idea is that high-rank cases would be more difficult, complicated and time-consuming to judge, whereas low-rank cases would be for typical CFJspam. The problem now is for people to decide which cases are important, hard to judge, and landmark-setting, and which ones are just spam; everyone thinks their own CFJs are important, often... -- I personally dislike judging the spammy CFJs with little or no effect on the game, but enjoy judging those CFJs which are truly controversial. Under such a system I would prefer to only judge cases with interest level 1. NOTE: I have been criticized for expressing this preference in the past. If this passes, then I'll generally assign high-II cases first and assign high-JR players to those cases first (similar to current practice with criminal/equity cases and hanging judges), so you would have at least a somewhat better shot of getting what you want.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:09 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 07:18, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Presumably the idea is that high-rank cases would be more difficult, complicated and time-consuming to judge, whereas low-rank cases would be for typical CFJspam. The problem now is for people to decide which cases are important, hard to judge, and landmark-setting, and which ones are just spam; everyone thinks their own CFJs are important, often... -- I personally dislike judging the spammy CFJs with little or no effect on the game, but enjoy judging those CFJs which are truly controversial. Under such a system I would prefer to only judge cases with interest level 1. NOTE: I have been criticized for expressing this preference in the past. Probably it's best to set IIs for fact-based CFJs low and rule-based CFJs high. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity
comex wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I retract my previous proposal with this title. Proposal: Generalize complexity CFJ 1647. In that case, I missed changing the proposal text. In this case, I'm pretty sure I didn't.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I retract my previous proposal with this title. Proposal: Generalize complexity CFJ 1647.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 07:15 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 00:35, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Create a rule titled Judicial Rank with Power 1.5 and this text: Judicial rank is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the Courts, with the same range and default as interest indices. A player is poorly qualified to judge judicial cases whose interest index exceeds eir judicial rank. This seems backward to me. Wouldn't more judges be interested in higher interest cases instead of less? Presumably the idea is that high-rank cases would be more difficult, complicated and time-consuming to judge, whereas low-rank cases would be for typical CFJspam. The problem now is for people to decide which cases are important, hard to judge, and landmark-setting, and which ones are just spam; everyone thinks their own CFJs are important, often... -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 00:35, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Create a rule titled Judicial Rank with Power 1.5 and this text: Judicial rank is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the Courts, with the same range and default as interest indices. A player is poorly qualified to judge judicial cases whose interest index exceeds eir judicial rank. This seems backward to me. Wouldn't more judges be interested in higher interest cases instead of less? BobTHJ
