On Sun, 2014-04-13 at 23:01 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 11:01 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > > scshunt wrote: > > > > judicial functions to a new office (maybe not the Clerk... the Arbitor > >> or something. This would remove the connotation of impartiality that > >> Murphy gave the Clerk). Then we can look at figurehead reform once > >> > > Oh, so it's all /my/ fault. I see how it is. :) > > > Yep. You left shoes impossible to fill, so we have to pick something else > so that we aren't tempted to fill them ;)
(And now back on my usual client. Sending one message from Yahoo! is normally enough to clear the bug that prevents it forwarding messages on to the correct place.) Thinking about it, one of my favourite things about Agora's old judicial system is that it has no actual, direct influence on the game; it exists more to encourage players to consider judgements and make them public, more than anything else. This leaves me a little confused as to how an intentionally unfair judgement system would work, at least for inquiries (it's clear how it would work for criminal cases). What sort of power does an unfair judge have on the game? Confusing people as to the correct gamestate until such time as it gets included in reports and self-ratifies, and then saying "haha, actually I was lying in my judgement but you all fell for it"? -- ais523
