On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:07 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 > I may have been a little too enthusiastic there. I definitely think it's a good idea. However, my willingness to stand for the office depends on a bunch of factors, such as the scope of the responsibilities and how busy I am and the like. -Aris >
