On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:00 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > > 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"). > I would be down to bring back some of pseudo dismiss options (e.g.): "UNINFORMED" - "Insufficient burden is being placed on the judge, please provide better evidence" "UNTRUTHY" - Unable to be defined a truth statement, but not necessarily in a paradoxical way.
