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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
