On Thu, 25 May 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > If you look at Rule 217: > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any rule change that > would (1) prevent a person from initiating a formal process to > resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable expectation > that the controversy will thereby be resolved; > This does not state that the "formal process" *has* to be a CFJ. For > example, a > CoE/Response is another formal process. So it's quite possible for a > Judge to say > "don't use the courts, or don't use the courts *yet*, do it this way > instead. > As long as the method the judge recommends offers a reasonable > expectation of > resolution. > > I'm saying this just as an idea - it's not one we've used generally, > but it's an > interesting concept from real world courts that we might think about. > > > That's kind of how I view the CoE/Response and CFJ systems anyways. I view > CoEs as the initial claim > that there is a rule being broken. The ability to respond allows the > defendant to present arguments > directly to the accuser, and both players an have opportunity to "settle" and > withdraw eir claim (the > defendant's claim to perform an action, the accuser's claim that the action > is invalid or illegal). > If the conflict isn't resolved through CoE, then the CFJ system serves as a > way to assign > a mediator to make a unbiased (or less biased) decision with oversight from > the majority of Agorans. > > But I'm still learning, so maybe I'm off base. Who knows? Certainly not me.
Not off-base at all! I think there's a very long custom around here that the Judge is expected to do a lot of the work to get to TRUE or FALSE as much as possible, including digging up evidence, figuring out arguments if the Caller doesn't provide, and so forth. This is contrary to real courts, where Judge's grumpily say to Lawyers "I'm dismissing this case until you do your homework" all the time. This is all down to game custom on what we find to be appropriate judgements (i.e. whether we motion to reconsider them or not). We could consciously decide to change that custom via discussion or precedent, we could leave it up to individual judges (in the real world, individual judges get reputations for being sticklers or not, that would be kind of fun), or we could try some SHOULD legislation, e.g. "the Caller SHOULD present sufficient evidence and arguments for a strong consideration, and DISMISS is appropriate if the Judge feels more homework is needed").
