How would people feel about reimplementing a formal criminal and civil court system in addition to CFJs? ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 30, 2017, at 8:27 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > 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 >
