On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2. When you break a SHALL, you take a risk. Half the time you'd get >> off with an Excused anyway because it was accidental. Why would anyone >> be wanting to support criminality, unless they had an axe to grind? > > Because it means that SHALLs are ignored. Since the with 2 support > requirement was added, in several months, only three people have been > found GUILTY of anything, one of which was a partnership: out of > these, only ehird was actually punished (for Phill). Each of the > other two cases included a sentence of APOLOGY, which the ninny > blatantly ignored.
First of all, if the Ninny ignored an apology, and I noticed, I'd personally bring a case against with a recommended worse penalty. Sorry if I didn't notice these. Secondly, I'd far rather error on this side then the previous "cases for judging incorrectly." Third, two support isn't hard... the fact that prosecution has slowed is a reflection of your will as well as others. if there's three of you (say ehird, Wooble, and comex) who agree, why don't you just always support any intents to prosecute, and further give each other specific power of attorneys to support criminal cases? A private solution that works as well as a regulated one? Who woulda thought? Finally, part of the issue for me is that we've become more lenient than I'd like in sentencing. Why bother a case for a direct violation if the judge is unwilling to do more than issue apology? I'd like either more chokeys or the return of blots. > The change to require support has turned the > criminal court into a glorified system of equity: nobody can be > punished even for the worst Rule violation if it's considered in the > best interests of the game, and more importantly, anyone can-- and > people do-- get away with minor but intentional Rule violations > because nobody cares enough to gather support and punish them. [...] > I think that officers should publish their > reports on time, that the CotC should assign cases on time, that > judges should judge on time (yes, including myself), that ninnies > should apologize, and obey equations, and that the Rules of Agora not > be considered an obstacle to the orderly functioning of the game. All it takes is you, ehird, and Wooble (or any third) to change this if you really think the issue is one of raising cases. I maintain the issue is more in sentencing. Going back to the pre-2-support system, how many cases against late reports are there, really? > This > is already the case with contracts, which too often are assigned null > equations, often by judges judging long after the point has been made > moot, and no doubt you want to extend the rule of Equity as far as > possible, Goethe... I'm not happy with null equations either, I prefer meaningful ones... except in real equity the majority of cases "settle out of court" so what's the harm there, either? > The > PBA allows fines, and the Rules allow community service. Let them be > used: the CotC can handle whatever frivolous criminal cases may arise. But they're not being so used, that's the problem. > Proto-proto: Abolish the pre-trial period. It delays criminal and > equity cases excessively, especially the latter because it's rarely > ended early; the judge can solicit defenses as necessary. The main reason for the pre-trial period was not so much the defense as allowing the defendant to bar a judge (only fair if the prosecutor can, and the barring has to happen before assignment). If you can think of another way to allow the barring, I'd support it (perhaps a 4-day opportunity to bar that starts when the case is called, not when the CotC informs the defendant?). -Goethe
