Kerim Aydin wrote: > Hence REASSIGN. I'm much more inclined to jump straight to reassign > for merely token efforts, especially for those with histories of token > efforts. It will happen more. I think a bigger issue is the Callers, > actually; standards of evidence and case preparation are way down from > what they used to be; the basic "DISMISS/UNDETERMINED - do your homework > and try again" used to be a better block but is seldom enough used. > > ... > > When the Judicial Reforms were enacted in 2007, it became a breach of the > judgement rule to assign an inappropriate judgement. Many, many criminal > cases were called when someone didn't agree with a judgement, whether the > judge put lots of work into it (but was misguided) or simply blew it off. > Then a set of precedents said "freedom from coercion or fear is critical > for judges. Judges should only be guilty of inappropriateness if they were > shown to have been directly bribed or performed other malfeasance". Then > there was a conscious decision to remove penalties from the rules (except > loss of salary). > > So having tried that one before, I think the right answer is just to > convince appeals courts to be more ready to REASSIGN instead of REMAND in > lazy cases; loss of salary plus loss of judicial rank would do fine if > that happened; it's possible now and merely a cultural issue. > > -G.
I disagree. Switching to REASSIGN doesn't deny salary, it just prevents excess salary from being earned. The judge still gets salary for judgments like "TRUE because pigs were on an airplane" or "FALSE because". Heck, you still get salary for "UNDETERMINED because I'm too lazy to think about this case". I completely agree that assigning an inappropriate judgment should be illegal. I do, however, believe that bad judges should be punished for clogging up the appeals system. Simply not paying them isn't enough as, even if it were feasible, they could still waste Agora's time by submitting unthought or wildly inappropriate judgments. Ambiguity in the game state causes the game to slow down, and judges assigning awful judgments to questions which would resolve ambiguity does not help. I feel that an appeals panel decision is most appropriate because then Agora must initially show some dissatisfaction with the judgment (in order for the appeal to occur) and the 3+ players awarding the penalties would have to do so unanimously. > Seems to be working fine to me. Just because things used to be Free > doesn't mean they should be. Looking at the latest Conductor's report > you have 32 rests; why such a miser if you think good proposals aren't > being distributed? Long proposal distributions previously > significantly removed the attractiveness of voting on proposals, which > is more important - truly dangerous things can get through that way. I personally find that where I might have previously thought about writing a minor proposal, I now go "Ugh, then I need to either pay a Note or keep track of dependent action intents (which I'm bad at)". As a result, I often do not write proposals that should have been written, and this is a direct consequence of Distributability. > I'll try to balance card supply to near 1 proposal/week (though that > may trade off with other actions). Not sure what you mean by degree > of safety. I don't agree with direct penalties for proposal > rejection; change that to "lack of award for adoption" and I'd agree. The idea here is that proposals that Agora strongly rejects are punished on the basis that they are probably wastes of time. The comment about caste was meant to point out that high-caste players have the ability to increase the VIs of their own proposals, making them safer from damage on ordinary proposals. I would also advocate offering 1 or maybe 2 "free" proposals per week - if only that number are strogly rejected, then there is no penalty. The penalty is only for people who put in multiple proposals that Agora rejects with lots of voice (and of course, they get no reward either).
