Nit: judge vs jury

[deboer-tim]

We have judge accounts, but clarifications are sent to the jury. We should just pick either and use it consistently.

[johnbrvc]

It pains me to say this, but I think the usage in the specification is consistent, and, alas, probably correct - although, I personally don't care for it. For competitions, the jury consists of a panel of judges (at least Gemini and ChatGPT agree on this, as does Wiki). (This is quite different than what a jury is for court trials.). Clars are sent to the jury (panel of judges), who then caucus to form an answer and reply. I didn't go through the entire specification or CCS requirements document, but as far as I can remember, the usage is consistent, if we think in terms of competitions instead of trials, I think it's OK.

So, each judge has an account. There are a panel of judges that form the jury (for competitions). I don't think too many people would know the distinction between a trial jury and a competition jury though.

[deboer-tim]

Even if it's technically correct, I just think the distinction is beyond most people and an unnecessary distraction. Replacing 'jury' with 'judges' would avoid this.

[eldering]

The only mention of jury is in the description at

ccs-specs/Contest_API.md

Line 1812 in 7e31f2a

| from\_team\_id | ID ? | Identifier of the [team](#teams) sending this clarification request, `null` iff a clarification is sent by the jury.

, right?

I don't really see a problem with this, but also don't mind replacing it with judges.

[niemela]

It is true that in some contexts (and arguably contexts closer to ours, such as "contests"), a jury is a panel of judges, but in other contexts (such as legal) a jury typically does not consist of judges.

The change suggested by @deboer-tim does not make it less correct in any context, makes it more correct in some, and (most importantly) does not actually require any special context to make sense since "judges" is simply the plural of "judge".