[mmsmatt]

Interesting. But I'm a widget maker, not a specialist in any of those fanciful terms you threw around. I'd like to participate in the judges' world, but my widgets take all my time. Is there someone that can sort through the precedents and rules on my behalf if I tell them what I need in widget-speak?

[arthur_pryor]

good point! another thing is, i don't really have time to read all these meta-rules for judges, and i certainly don't have time to write new ones in detail or to argue or vote for each one of them. is there anyway i could help choose a representative that'd consider my interests and the interests of others and then do the actual nitty-gritty work of writing and selecting such rules?

[nordsieck]

Unfortunately, it has been found that the principle-agent problem is just to much to overcome in this case.

[sandworm101]

And perhaps there should be some government-approved body to decide how one goes about becoming a specialist. Perhaps they could organize a system of specialist education and exams so as to ensure that members of the public aren't duped by charlatan specialists.

[zdkl]

Maybe that right there is the issue: maybe the public doesn't need to be protected of duping charlatans, but needs to adopt a standard to identify them and propagate information about their incompetence? Problem remains that a fair, common protocol to measure and communicate about trust seems somewhat of a research subject still(?).