On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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 > I like this public defender idea, and would be happy to stand for the role. Finally an interesting position without exessive paperwork! I also like the idea of mandatory tags for certain emails. I think we would want tags for proposals, pends, and votes. I'll have more thoughts on that later. -Aris >
