On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > Kerim Aydin wrote: >> 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.
> 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 think you mean "UNDETERMINED, because due to the caller not taking 30 seconds to cut and paste, I would have to wade back through 100 messages or more 1-2 weeks or more after the fact (or 3-4 on a reassign). And I got pushed out of the rotation for this?" > I completely agree that assigning an inappropriate judgment should be > illegal. Did you leave out a "not" here, or are you actually disagreeing with me? > 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. It would be reasonable for a non-remand to result in a loss of the Note (or other currency) earned for that judgement or that judgement week. >> 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. If it's so minor that you can't be bothered to track a dependent action, pay a note, or send a single message asking if anyone finds it worth paying for, then it's too minor for the promotor have to distribute, too minor for us to wade through and consider, too minor for the Assessor to have to tally, too minor for the Rulekeepor to have to add. A poorly thought-out proposal is as much or more of a burden than a poor judgement. Agora functioned fine for at least 1/3 of its life with pay/permission to have a proposal distributed, with plenty of proposals - including minor ones - etc. >> 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. That's true, they pay for that privilege (in general). To balance that we have democratization - I wouldn't hesitate to democratize controversial ai-1 proposals on the grounds that big game changes, even on AI-1, might be better with a level playing field for votes. -G.
