Proto revised slightly in response to Murphy's comments and recent
proposals.
proto-proposal: judicial reform
AI: 2
{{{
Whereas Agora has since 1996 laboured under an unnecessarily complex,
unclear, poorly-specified, bug-ridden judicial system, and wishes to
replace this with a system designed in the light of the greater
understanding of nomic that has been achieved in the past ten years,
taking advantage of the innovations made in the Agoran ruleset, and
conforming to the present taste for a shorter ruleset with simpler
mechanisms, it is the will of Agora that the judicial system set out
below be adopted.
[--------------------------]
[Part I: new judicial rules]
[--------------------------]
Retitle rule 991 to "Judicial Cases Generally", leave its power
unchanged at 2, and amend it to read
A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a
procedure to settle a matter of controversy. There are
subclasses of judicial case with particular features defined by
other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined
by the rules.
The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for
managing judicial activity. The CotC's report includes the
status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have
at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.
Retitle rule 1868 to "Judge Assignment Generally", change its power to
2, and amend it to read
At any time, a judicial case either has no judge assigned to it
(default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge;
this is a persistent status that changes only according to the
rules. To recuse a judge from a case means to deassign em as
judge. To assign a judge to a case implicitly recuses any
existing judge.
At any time, a judicial case either does not require a judge
(default) or requires a judge; this is not a persistent status,
but is evaluated instantaneously.
When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned,
the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by
announcement. Whenever this situation arises the CotC SHALL
make such an assignment as soon as possible.
Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to
be assigned as judge of a judicial case are the active
first-class players. Being unqualified to be assigned as a
judge does not inherently prevent an entity from continuing to
be judge if already assigned.
Leave rule 1871's title unchanged at "The Standing Court", change its
power to 1.5, and amend it to read
Each player is either standing, sitting, or supine; this status
is known as eir posture. The CotC's report includes each
player's posture. When an entity becomes a player, e is
initially supine. A player CAN change emself from sitting to
supine, or from supine to sitting, by announcement.
A supine player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any
judicial case. The CotC SHALL NOT assign a sitting player to be
the judge of any judicial case. If the CotC has assigned a
sitting player as judge, and that player is still the judge of
that case, the CotC CAN recuse that judge from that case by
announcement.
When the CotC assigns a standing player as judge of a judicial
case, the player becomes sitting, except in the situation
discussed in the next sentence. If the CotC assigns a standing
player as judge of more than one judicial case consecutively in
the same announcement, and states in the announcement that these
are linked assignments, the player becomes sitting upon the last
of these assignments, but not any of the earlier ones. The CotC
SHOULD NOT perform linked assignments unless the cases being
linked are closely related in their subject matter.
The CotC CAN change all sitting players to standing by
announcement. The CotC SHALL NOT do this unless there is a
judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all
entities qualified to be so assigned are sitting players, and e
immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a
judge to that case.
Enact a rule with title "Judicial Panels", power 1.7, and text
A judicial panel is a structure whereby a group of two or more
persons (its members) act together for the purpose of judging
judicial cases. A judicial panel's membership cannot change,
and if two panels have the same membership then they are the
same panel. Judicial panels exist implicitly, without any
specific act of formation.
A judicial panel CAN send messages by means of any of its
members sending a message identified as being from the panel,
with the unanimous agreement of the panel's members. By this
mechanism a judicial panel can act, in situations where the
rules state that an action is performed by sending a message. A
judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel
SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel satisfies all of
its obligations.
Enact a rule with title "Judicial Questions", power 2, and text
Within a judicial case, one or more judicial questions may
arise. Each judicial question is either inapplicable (default)
or applicable; this is not a persistent status but is evaluated
instantaneously. Each judicial question either is open
(default), suspended, or has a particular judgement; this is a
persistent status that changes only according to the rules. The
possible types of judgement for a judicial question vary
according to the type of question.
When a judicial case has an applicable open judicial question,
it requires a judge, and its judge CAN assign a valid judgement
to that question by announcement. Whenever there is a judge
assigned to a judicial case with an applicable open question,
the judge SHALL assign such a judgement to the question as soon
as possible.
Whenever a judicial case has a judicial question that has
remained applicable and open, while the same judge has been
assigned to the case, continuously for the past week, the CotC
CAN recuse that judge by announcement. Whenever a judicial case
has a judicial question that has remained applicable and open,
while the same judge has been assigned to the case, continuously
for the past two weeks, the CotC SHALL so recuse the judge as
soon as possible.
Among the possible judgements of a judicial question, some
subset of them are appropriate. Judgements are appropriate only
where so defined by the rules. A judge SHALL NOT assign an
inappropriate judgement. Where more than one appropriate
judgement is available, the choice between them is at the
judge's discretion.
Retitle rule 591 to "Inquiry Cases", change its power to 1.7, and
amend it to read
There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.
An inquiry case's purpose is to determine the veracity of a
particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any
person, by announcement which includes the statement to be
inquired into.
The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one
person from assignment as judge of the case.
An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is
always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:
* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and
logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated
* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically
true at the time the inquiry case was initiated
* UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically
undecidable, nonsensical, too vague, or otherwise not capable
of being accurately described as either false or true, at the
time the inquiry case was initiated
* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at
the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the
game
* UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the information available to the
judge is insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE,
and UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however,
uncertainty as to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot
constitute insufficiency of information for this purpose
The judgement of the question in an inquiry case SHOULD guide
future play, including future judgements, but does not directly
affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is
ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant
inquiry case judgements.
Retitle rule 1504 to "Criminal Cases", change its power to 1.7, and
amend it to read
There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.
A criminal case's purpose is to determine the culpability of a
particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach
of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be
initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly
identifies the defendant and specifies the action (which may be
a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant
allegedly breached the rules.
The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.
During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In the
pre-trial phase the judge SHALL as soon as possible inform the
defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument for
eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the
defendant has been so informed.
The initiator and defendant are each unqualified to be assigned
as judge of the case. During the pre-trial phase, the defendant
CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case,
by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is
recused.
A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is
applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The
valid judgements for this question are:
* ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been
reached in another criminal case with the same defendant and
substantially the same alleged act
* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed
by the rules at the time it allegedly occurred
* INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the
alleged act
* SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the
judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt
whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act
* EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant has good reason why e
could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as
serious as alleged
* GUILTY, appropriate if none of the above judgements is
appropriate
A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is
applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has
a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable
question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is
hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on
sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in
effect.
Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.
When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is
thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for
the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the
sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and
sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing
have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The
CotC's report includes the status of all active judgements.
The valid sentences are:
* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if
any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.
Has no effect.
* APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),
appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in
effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal
apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed
words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire
for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish
one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of
this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more
than once.
* CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied
by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,
appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably
correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the
tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of
intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is
active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the
chokey except as required by this rule.
* EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by
the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,
appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably
correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the
tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches
amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type
is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as
required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,
e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.
An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal
case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a
judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant
by announcement.
Retitle rule 911 to "Appeal Cases", change its power to 1.7, and amend
it to read
There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.
An appeal case's purpose is to determine the appropriateness of
a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and
make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment
of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is
referred to as the prior assignment; the word "prior" in this
rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior
assignment.
An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal
case within the past two weeks, other than an assignment caused
by a judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any player
with 2 support.
The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case
are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each
of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior
case and none of the members is the prior judge.
An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is
applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The
valid judgements for the question on disposition are:
* AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for
the prior question
* REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the
appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes
that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement
if given a new opportunity
* REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the
appropriateness of the of the prior judgement
* OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior
question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate
in the prior question and the replacement judgement is
appropriate for the prior question
Initiation of an appeal case renders the prior question
suspended. It remains suspended as long as the question on
disposition in the appeal case has no judgement. When the
question on disposition has a judgement, things happen according
to that judgement:
* if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior
question again
* if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again
* if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused,
and the prior question is rendered open again
* if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement
judgement is assigned to the prior question
[----------------]
[Part II: repeals]
[----------------]
Repeal rules
889 ("The Clerk of the Courts"),
897 ("Barring Players from Judgement"),
2024 ("Linked Statements"),
2132 ("Excess CFJs"),
408 ("Late Judgement"),
1575 ("Standards of Proof"),
1565 ("Dismissal of a CFJ"),
1826 ("Motions"),
1365 ("Concurring and Dissenting Opinions"),
1564 ("Initiating Appeals"),
1447 ("Final Judgement upon Appeal"),
1804 ("Appeal of Judicial and Sentencing Orders"),
1805 ("Appellate Orders"),
1503 ("Rules Violations"),
908 ("Formal Apologies"), and
2129 ("Dishonor Rolls").
[The repeal of R1503 can only take place if it was downmutated in
advance by P5072; if not, the text of R1503 has very little effect and
shouldn't cause any problems.]
[----------------------------------]
[Part III: consequential amendments]
[----------------------------------]
Amend rule 869 by replacing the paragraph
Whenever a player is deregistered, e is prohibited from
registering for the next thirty days.
with
Whenever a player deregisters, e is prohibited from registering
for the next thirty days.
[This auto-exile is only appropriate for voluntary deregistrations.
For exile due to criminal sentence it would create an unretractable
minimum tariff, which would be unjust.]
If the recent proposal "MMI in practice" was not adopted, amend rule
1769 by replacing the text
nor may any Call for Judgement, Judgement, notice of Appeal,
Decision of Appeals Boards, or Opinion be published by the Clerk
of the Courts
with
nor may any judge be assigned to any judicial case, nor may any
judge assign a judgement to any judicial question
If the recent proposal "MMI in practice" was adopted, amend rule 1769
by replacing the text
the Clerk of the Courts SHALL NOT publish any Call for
Judgement, Judgement, notice of Appeal, Decision of Appeals
Boards, or Opinion
with
judges SHALL NOT be assigned to any judicial case, and judges
SHALL NOT assign judgement to any judicial question
[CotC publication isn't used for anything any more. Judgement itself
is the closest equivalent. Two versions of this amendment because
"MMI in practice" proposes to MMIify this part of rule 1769.]
Amend rule 2126 by replacing the text
c) A player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation
Period gains one Blue VC.
with
c) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question
within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue
VC.
and replacing the text
c) A player whose judgement is overturned, or who is recused
for failing to judge within eir Deliberation Period, loses
one Blue VC.
with
c) A player who is recused from a judicial case because a
judicial question has remained applicable, open, and
unjudged loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior
judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM
is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue
VC.
[Update to match the new internal concepts and terminology. This
amendment can only take place if R2126 was downmutated and amended in
advance by the proposal "Three-Tone Economics"; if not, the meaning of
the old terminology in terms of the new system is reasonably apparent
anyway.]
Amend rule 1794 by deleting the items labelled "(b)" and "(c)" and
then changing the item label "(d)" to "(b)".
[The new judicial system doesn't use orders.]
Retitle rule 217 to "Interpreting the Rules", leave its power
unchanged at 2, and amend it to read
When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules
takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or
unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense,
past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the
game.
[This rule used to apply itself only to judgements, but actually this
part is applicable even when judgement is not invoked. This amendment
can only take place if R217 was downmutated in advance by P5071; if
not, the unchanged text of R217 is still appropriate.]
Retitle rule 1742 to "Contracts", change its power to 1.5, and amend
it to read
Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among
themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and
be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a
contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the
set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract
may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract
automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls
below two.
Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
between the contract and the rules.
[Dropping the attempt at civil enforcement of contracts, because it
can't really work. We don't have appropriate remedies to do equity
law (it requires a valuable commodity, i.e., money). Turning the
agreement into an obligation of the rules makes breach of contract
subject to the criminal law. Contract clauses can always specify
remedies if there are appropriate ones in a particular case, and those
can be applied via inquiry CFJs, with the criminal law as a backup if
the respondent reneges on eir remedy obligations. Ultimately the
criminal law is always required to back up a specific-performance
remedy, of course.]
[--------------------------------]
[Part IV: transitional provisions]
[--------------------------------]
Revoke all patent titles of "In the Chokey", "Fugitive", and "Fugitive
from Justice".
[Punishments no longer use patent titles.]
CFJs that existed before the adoption of this proposal shall generally
continue to exist. Their continuity across the amendments made by
this proposal shall be governed by these provisions:
* "Pre-reform" refers to the state in which the rules and other game
entities were immediately before the adoption of this proposal.
* "Post-reform" refers to the state in which the rules and other game
entities will be immediately after this proposal has completed
taking effect.
* Each pre-reform CFJ continues to exist as a post-reform inquiry
case.
* Each pre-reform CFJ with a judge assigned has the same judge
assigned in its post-reform form.
* Each pre-reform CFJ with no judge assigned has no judge assigned in
its post-reform form.
* For each pre-reform CFJ with an unappealed judgement, the
post-reform inquiry case has a judgement assigned to its question on
veracity, according to this translation:
+ Pre-reform FALSE judgement corresponds to post-reform FALSE.
+ Pre-reform TRUE judgement corresponds to post-reform TRUE.
+ Any other pre-reform judgement corresponds to post-reform
UNDETERMINED.
* For each pre-reform CFJ which is dismissed (and not subsequently
reopened) without judgement, the post-reform inquiry case has a
judgement of UNDETERMINED assigned to its question on veracity.
* For each pre-reform CFJ with an incomplete appeal of judgement, the
post-reform inquiry case has its question on veracity suspended.
* For each pre-reform CFJ neither with an unappealed judgement, nor
dismissed (and not subsequently reopened) without judgement, nor
with an incomplete appeal of judgement, the post-reform inquiry case
has its question on veracity open.
* Each pre-reform appeal of anything other than a judgement is a
detail of the CFJ (post-reform inquiry case) to which it is
attached, and does not continue to exist as a distinct post-reform
entity.
* Each pre-reform appeal of a judgement continues to exist as a
post-reform appeal case regarding the assignment of that judgement
to the question on veracity in the inquiry case.
* Each pre-reform appeal of a judgement to which exactly three
appellate judges are assigned has in its post-reform form a judicial
panel assigned as judge, the members of which are the pre-reform
appellate judges.
* Each pre-reform appeal of a judgement that does not have exactly
three appellate judges assigned has in its post-reform form no judge
assigned.
* For each pre-reform appeal of a judgement in which all three
appellate judges have rendered judgement, the post-reform appeal
case has a judgement assigned to its question on disposition,
according to this translation:
+ If the pre-reform subject of the appeal was sustained, the
post-reform judgement is AFFIRM.
+ If the pre-reform appeal resulted in reversal of the subject of
the appeal, the post-reform judgement is OVERRULE with the
appropriate new judgement for the prior question.
+ If the pre-reform appeal resulted in the overturning of the
original judgement and the reassigning of the subject of the
appeal to the same judge as it previously had, the post-reform
judgement is REMAND.
+ Otherwise the post-reform judgement is REASSIGN.
* For each pre-reform appeal of a judgement in which not all three
appellate judges have rendered judgement, the post-reform appeal
case has its question on disposition open.
* Aspects of continuity not addressed by the above provisions shall be
governed by rule 1586. The above provisions shall guide the
application of rule 1586.
[Rule 1586 theoretically should achieve all of this on its own. As
it's a particularly radical redefinition of complex entities, explicit
provisions seem helpful.]
}}}
-zefram
