I don't know if this was clear, but the intent of the proposal was to avoid people getting "stuck" with CFJs they don't wish to judge. Under this proposal, the only people bothered by a frivolous CFJ are ais523 and anyone interested in judging (assuming others don't mind skipping over the DIS messages). It's not perfect--far from it--but it's better than nothing.
Another idea: make CFJs with no effect on the current gamestate a dependent action of some sort. Gaelan > On May 30, 2017, at 1:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > Since I mentioned it in a recent message, thought I'd offer some > specific comments. > > When I had the whole Arbitor job (assign and report), the largest > obstacle was formatting the cases at the beginning (collecting them > into a big case log and formatting the random conversations into > arguments, before assignment). > > If this has to be done first, as proposed, case assignments will > drastically slow down and make issues worse (based on my experience, > and on how past clerks did it). > > The current method of "assign on the fly" cuts through that, and the > formatting time delay happens afterwards, so it doesn't slow down > actual court business. > > The disadvantage is that the action is harder to spectate (and comment > on). But at high volumes, even the old system had this issue - there > was plenty of discussion quoting pieces of case logs and the pre- > formatting didn't make spectating any clearer. > > Also, self-assignment actually makes one more thing to track. If > we assume the Arbitor can act at the speed ais523 has been in the last > couple weeks, I think I'd discourage self-assignment. > > Note that *everything* ais523 and I have done in the last couple weeks > has been "timely" - within a week of calling, judging, etc., the > cases have been up. Adding stuff won't speed this up or clear the > courts any faster. > > I think the best solution is first, to remember that CFJs don't change > things immediately, and there's time to reflect; it's ok to just not follow > the arguments and read the cases afterwards (and file Motions at that > point if something goes wonky). And second, given that everyone might > not want to follow along, if this volume is more than a blip, we might > move to a dedicated court forum. > >> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Martin Rönsch wrote: >> I like this proposal. It fixes the problem of growing caseloads for judges >> while still ensuring that important >> CFJs (those that multiple people have an interest in) get judged. >> >> However this proposal does not address the problem of growing caseload for >> Arbitor and recordkeeping of CFJs. >> The Arbitor still has to keep track of all open CFJs and who has interest in >> them and with this proposal now >> also who is eligible for which CFJ to judge. >
