BobTHJ wrote: > None of the other offices have such powerful 'perks'. I think this is > part of what makes CotC elections so hotly contested while other > offices struggle to keep officers who can publish a regular report.
But how much of a perk is it, really? No process of judge selection will prevent players from appealing a judgement that isn't generally acceptable to all contesting parties. > I personally think that such a system might make the judicial process > more streamlined and fair rather than less so. Directly biased players > are already barred from judgeship of related cases. Most cases (though > less so of late) are so highly contested that players clearly polarize > into two opposing factions. This proposal ensures that whoever judges > a case is truly interested in that case and therefore has evaluated > the arguments carefully which should reduce the number of appeals. By offering the factions a bidding war? Players uninterested in judging cases in general can and do remain supine. Players uninterested in judging a particular case can and occasionally do recuse themselves from it; that could use more of an incentive, like maybe a return to the lightweight Infraction system for rule violations (e.g. failure to report, judge, etc. on time) where there is no controversy (but no one bothers to invoke the heavyweight criminal justice system).
