Re: [attn: promotor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 3:31 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 2/9/2020 3:01 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > I strongly oppose this. In my view, inquiry cases should generally > > *not* be the officer making the initial interpretation, at least not > > preferentially. Inquiry cases are effectively the fallback appeal > > mechanism, and should remain a balanced system. I would rather see a > > separate path for administrative interpretations. > > Skeletal outline for simple memorandum: > > * A valid memorandum is considered "game custom" for the purposes of > interpreting law; > > * a memorandum is invalid only if a CFJ finds it is arbitrary and > capricious or reckless in its disregard for the rules text; > > * elected offices only; > > * a non-interim officeholder CAN issue a memorandum w/2 Agoran Consent; > > * valid memoranda are tracked with the officer's most frequent report; > > * when an new person is elected to an office, all previous memoranda for > that office become invalid; > > * during the nomination period of an election, a nominee can publish a > document listing memoranda for the office. If e is elected, those > memoranda become valid; They should really be regulations. -Aris > >
Re: [attn: promotor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On 2/9/2020 3:01 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > I strongly oppose this. In my view, inquiry cases should generally > *not* be the officer making the initial interpretation, at least not > preferentially. Inquiry cases are effectively the fallback appeal > mechanism, and should remain a balanced system. I would rather see a > separate path for administrative interpretations. Skeletal outline for simple memorandum: * A valid memorandum is considered "game custom" for the purposes of interpreting law; * a memorandum is invalid only if a CFJ finds it is arbitrary and capricious or reckless in its disregard for the rules text; * elected offices only; * a non-interim officeholder CAN issue a memorandum w/2 Agoran Consent; * valid memoranda are tracked with the officer's most frequent report; * when an new person is elected to an office, all previous memoranda for that office become invalid; * during the nomination period of an election, a nominee can publish a document listing memoranda for the office. If e is elected, those memoranda become valid;
Re: [attn: promotor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 3:02 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 17:59, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > I mean, didn’t we just do that, without any explicit rule at all? All we
> > need is an informal policy that we go with the officer’s interpretation
> > unless a CfJ decides otherwise.
> >
> > Alternatively, here’s a lightweight attempt to implement memoranda, either
> > as an alternative to the above informal mechanism or because it becomes a
> > dispute: I create the proposal {
> > Title: Calls for Memoranda
> > AI: 2
> > Co-authors: Aris, G
> >
> > Amend rule 991 by appending “All other things being equal, the Arbitor
> > SHOULD assign Calls for Judgement to the officer most concerned with its
> > content.” after the sentence "The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time
> > such that all interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to
> > judge.”
> > }
> >
> > Maybe if we wanted to get fancy, we could implement some way for the
> > officer to assign themselves, so they could note their interpretation in
> > the CfJ log simply by calling and resolving the CfJ in the same message.
> >
> > Gaelan
>
> I strongly oppose this. In my view, inquiry cases should generally
> *not* be the officer making the initial interpretation, at least not
> preferentially. Inquiry cases are effectively the fallback appeal
> mechanism, and should remain a balanced system. I would rather see a
> separate path for administrative interpretations.
>
> -Alexis
Same here, except maybe "oppose" instead of "strongly oppose" for me.
-Aris
Re: [attn: promotor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On 2/9/2020 2:59 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > Amend rule 991 by appending “All other things being equal, the Arbitor SHOULD > assign Calls for Judgement to the officer most concerned with its content.” > after the sentence "The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all > interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.” I'm not so keen on this for a couple reasons - in part because of needing to seek impartial judges and balancing judicial workload, but more importantly because the idea of a memorandum is it's not necessarily binding on the next holder of the same office, while a CFJ would be. -G.
Re: [attn: promotor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 17:59, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I mean, didn’t we just do that, without any explicit rule at all? All we need
> is an informal policy that we go with the officer’s interpretation unless a
> CfJ decides otherwise.
>
> Alternatively, here’s a lightweight attempt to implement memoranda, either as
> an alternative to the above informal mechanism or because it becomes a
> dispute: I create the proposal {
> Title: Calls for Memoranda
> AI: 2
> Co-authors: Aris, G
>
> Amend rule 991 by appending “All other things being equal, the Arbitor SHOULD
> assign Calls for Judgement to the officer most concerned with its content.”
> after the sentence "The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
> interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.”
> }
>
> Maybe if we wanted to get fancy, we could implement some way for the officer
> to assign themselves, so they could note their interpretation in the CfJ log
> simply by calling and resolving the CfJ in the same message.
>
> Gaelan
I strongly oppose this. In my view, inquiry cases should generally
*not* be the officer making the initial interpretation, at least not
preferentially. Inquiry cases are effectively the fallback appeal
mechanism, and should remain a balanced system. I would rather see a
separate path for administrative interpretations.
-Alexis
Re: [attn: promotor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 14:59 -0800, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I mean, didn’t we just do that, without any explicit rule at all? All
> we need is an informal policy that we go with the officer’s
> interpretation unless a CfJ decides otherwise.
>
> Alternatively, here’s a lightweight attempt to implement memoranda,
> either as an alternative to the above informal mechanism or because
> it becomes a dispute: I create the proposal {
> Title: Calls for Memoranda
> AI: 2
> Co-authors: Aris, G
>
> Amend rule 991 by appending “All other things being equal, the
> Arbitor SHOULD assign Calls for Judgement to the officer most
> concerned with its content.” after the sentence "The Arbitor SHALL
> assign judges over time such that all interested players have
> reasonably equal opportunities to judge.”
> }
I actually really like this (as an alternative to memoranda). It gives
a new method of changing the way that CFJs are made, without confusing
any of the existing principles of how CFJs work.
--
ais523
