Thursday, January 17, 2019

Proposal: Slush Hour

In “Banking”, replace “As a weekly action, the Judge may post a blog entry announcing the number of Attorneys who have a Slush Fund greater than zero, and the size in dollars of the largest Slush Fund.” with:-

If they have not already done so in the current week, the Judge should post a blog entry announcing the number of Attorneys who have a Slush Fund greater than zero, and the size in dollars of the largest Slush Fund.

This optional rule has yet to be invoked.

Thursday, January 17, 2019

Proposal: Digging deepest

In enacting this Proposal, consider it to have the same text as the Proposal titled “Digging deeper”.

Second time’s a charm, as they say.

Story Post: Case 38: Morgan v. Benjamin

In this Personal Injury case, Morgan claims to have been injured in a fight with Benjamin, who seems to love starting them.

Story Post: Case 37: Casey v. James

In this Unpaid Debt case, Casey wants some money from James to help cover some of the funeral expenses.

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

Proposal: Filibusterbuster

Reached quorum 4 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 17 Jan 2019 10:21:21 UTC

In “Cases”, after “Within the comments of a Case, FOR icons represent solidly researched arguments and AGAINST icons represent underhanded tactics.” add:-

A comment on a Case is Relevant if it was made by an Attorney who represents one of the Case’s Plaintiffs, and if contains a voting icon which that Attorney has not already used in an earlier comment on that Case.

Replace “If nobody has posted a voting icon in a comment on the oldest Open Case in the previous 24 hours” with:-

If nobody has posted a Relevant comment to the oldest Open Case in the previous 24 hours

Proposal: Bad Advice

Reached quorum 4 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 17 Jan 2019 10:17:44 UTC

Add a new bullet point before the last one in the second list in “Cases”:-

* If the Loser of the Case Mistrusts one or more of their Attorneys, then that Client ceases to be represented by those Attorneys

The Loose Floorboard

I wish to launder the sum of $52,523.

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

Proposal: No Switching Sides

Reached quorum 4 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 15 Jan 2019 16:44:48 UTC

Add to the subrule “Gaining and Losing” the following paragraph:

If an Attorney represents a client in an open case, they cannot take up the other client in that case.

This is a scam I tried to pull off with little success due to misunderstanding the rules. While it is currently legal, it probably shouldn’t be; therefore, I am attempting to submit a fix.

Proposal: Disbarment

Reached quorum 4 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 15 Jan 2019 16:37:51 UTC

In “Fiscal Victory”, replace:

If an Attorney has a Valuation exceeding $100,000, and more Valuation than every other Attorney,

with

If an Attorney has a Valuation exceeding $100,000, more Valuation than every other Attorney, and an Integrity greater than 0,

Proposal: Digging deeper

Reached quorum 5-0, enacted by Kevan and since Case 36 is still open “the rest of this Proposal has no effect”.

Adminned at 15 Jan 2019 16:36:57 UTC

If Case 36 has not been closed, the rest of this Proposal has no effect.

If Case 36 has been closed: In “Cases”, replace:

* For each Party in the Case whose Attorney made a comment on the Case’s blog post which included a FOR icon, decrease that Party’s Guilt for this Case by 2 (to a minimum of zero) and decrease that Attorney’s Money by $2,000 (to a minimum of zero).
* For each Party in the Case whose Attorney made a comment on the Case’s blog post which included an AGAINST icon, increase the other Party’s Guilt for this Case by 1 and decrease that Attorney’s Integrity by 1 (to a minimum of zero).

with:

* For each FOR icon within a comment on the Case’s blog post made by a Party’s Attorney, decrease that Party’s Guilt for this Case by 1 (to a minimum of zero). Decrease that Attorney’s money (to a minimum of zero) by n times $1,000 for the n-th FOR icon: $1,000 for the first FOR icon, $2,000 for the second FOR icon, and so on.
* For each AGAINST icon within a comment on the Case’s blog post made by a Party’s Attorney: if that Attorney’s integrity is above 0, increase the other Party’s Guilt for this Case by 1 and decrease that Attorney’s Integrity by 1.

Story Post: Case 36: State of Connecticut v. James

The courtroom is filled to the brim with prosecutors in this Burglary case. James Chamberlain is charged with illegal entry into the offices of Smith Group, a local real estate company, with the intent to snoop on details of their properties.

got some dirty clothes

This is a Laundering Post. I wish to launder $32,825.

Proposal: The immortal part of oneself

A quorum is not voting FOR, 2-3. Failed by pokes.

Adminned at 15 Jan 2019 12:14:20 UTC

Amend the list of Clients in “Clients” by setting the Reputation of each client to a random value.

The past few weeks have been rather proposal-dry. I’m trying to do at least something.

Silence in Court

Diabecko and Naught idle out after 9 and 8 days of inactivity respectively. Quorum drops to 3.

Saturday, January 12, 2019

Story Post: Case 35: Goldberg Technology v. Morgan

In this Malpractice case, Goldberg Technology claims that Morgan (V) did a criminally poor job in his temporary stint replacing Morgan (IV) as CFO.

Story Post: Case 34: Benjamin v. Elizabeth

In this Malpractice case, Benjamin claims that Elizabeth made an error while preparing his taxes for him five years ago and wants to recoup the money he claims he lost to the IRS.

Friday, January 11, 2019

Story Post: Case 33: Goldberg Technology v. Benjamin

In this Personal Injury case, Goldberg Technology is accusing Benjamin Chamberlain of engaging in a fist-fight with some Goldberg executives outside their offices.

Story Post: Case 32: X Express v. Joshua

In this Personal Injury case, X Express is accusing Joshua Chamberlain of running a red light, striking one of X Express’ bike messengers.

Proposal: Hanlon’s Razor

Timed out 1 vote to 2. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 13 Jan 2019 18:05:50 UTC

In “Cases”, remove “and decrease that Attorney’s Integrity by 2 (to a minimum of zero)”.

Throwing a case seems like enough of a drawback by itself, really.

Tuesday, January 08, 2019

Proposal: No Running in the Corridors

Timed out 3 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 10 Jan 2019 12:48:23 UTC

In the first bullet list of “Cases”, add a new bullet point after the third:-

If either Party of the Case is represented by an Attorney who is already representing a Party in another Open Case, skip the rest of this atomic action

Limiting the Case generations so that if you’re already assigned to one open Case, you won’t also be assigned to the other. Seems better to keep as many players involved in the game as possible, on any given day.