On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, comex wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >>> The thing is, we have to develop an equity issue (or coming-from-the >>> outside issue) that people care about. I don't think it was the scams >>> that killed equity - that's no worse than real life offshore shell >>> companies to avoid taxes etc. and the stress tests were good. The >>> problem was ultimately apathy; almost all issues (e.g. BobTHJs points >>> awards last fall) ended with people saying "what's done is done and >>> time has passed, we can't be bothered, null judgement." -G. >> >> Part of this was that (due to pre-trial phases and such) it was always >> a few weeks before the case was assigned to a judge. If we bring back >> equity, we should let the judge judge immediately; if the parties >> don't like it they can appeal. > > Actually, IIRC, equity cases had unusual numbers of recusals for non- > performing judges. But I think a lot of the blame really comes down > to very lax standards for those filing cases (yes that's something I've > always fought against!) Still, the new system should have: > 1. In calling the case, the plaintiff MUST do eir homework in the > first place and recommend an actual punishment. No recommended > punishment = instant dismissal. > 2. This puts it more on a criminal timeline; a few days for the > defendant to defend eirself (or recommend an alternate punishment) > followed by judgement. > 3. The important thing is that once the plaintiff and defendant have > put out their recommendations (i.e. their initial bargaining > positions) they should be encouraged to reach a settlement on > their own. > > -G. > > > >
In addition to this, I'm almost certain that you could speed up judging in other ways in general. Proto-proto-proto: -eliminate hawkishness and posture -the CotC assigns numbers to cases, and publishes reports, but doesn't assign the cases themselves -players can volunteer for cases as soon as they are submitted -suitable limits on when players CAN take cases: only a certain number of cases per period of time, can't take two cases in a row, can't retake a case that's been appealed, and so forth (they can be barred, as well) -possibly increase the rewards for judging. In cases that more directly affect gameplay, I'd imagine pushing your viewpoint forward is a reward in itself. In the more abstruse ones, you might need a bigger reward. (Maybe case IIs could be reworked to support this distinction.) This would probably break some things for a while, but I'd imagine that's half the fun. I also agree with David's (username?) thoughts on equity specifically.
