Actually what could be interesting is make a system of solicitor and defender, in which the caller pends it, then the solicitor argues for FALSE, defender for TRUE, then the judge decides. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 30, 2017, at 8:25 PM, Aris Merchant > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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
