On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie" <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all. > > (final?) followup: I still disagree with the wide/narrow judging idea > (both on the principle and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds). > > We purposefully built a lot of flexibility into the Arbitor's > assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge" > rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else). > omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with > contrasting assignment policies. "Favoring" as used now is wholly > Arbitor's discretion. Point being: this is the kind of thing an > Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an > election matter, rather than mandating a switching system. > NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the system into ensuring you got a favorable judge. That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and other judgements) to make happen. I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work on ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's super important. E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on em, not us. If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G. comes back and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they want the post) then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't there - so let's not do that. I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN do, not what the officers SHALL do. Personally I believe in: Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and 'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently eating a sandwich`") Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge) - but the recusal must come with reasoning. And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread. A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder language on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ has no apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough evidence or argument to adjudicate. Although if there was a dismissal due to lack of evidence, I would think a public defender role (or office) would probably make CFJs a little more robust. -grok
