IMHO, the current informal system of gratuitous arguments work fine; I see little point in assigning someone the job of arguing for a particular side when we have plenty of arguments for both sides (assuming there is some hope of both sides being correct).
Gaelan > On May 30, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 30 May 2017, Quazie wrote: >> If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G. comes back >> and wants eir post > > I think splitting the "assigner" and the "recordkeepor" is a good split to > keep, whether informally or formally (I plan to keep up the recordkeeping > for a bit, anyway). Maybe the assigner could become a "fun" office, with > expanded powers as well as duties, to make it a plum position (and then > picking a judicial assignment method would actually be an election issue > in exchange for the powers). > > On Tue, 30 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> How would people feel about reimplementing a formal criminal and civil >> court system in addition to CFJs? > > It's not bad in principle, but this (or suggestions for public defender, > etc) requires yet more officers. That would be my only concern, I like > the idea of official true/false arguments! > > The main issue in the past with the criminal and civil systems was just > time - by the time you let plaintiff, defendant, judge all respond in a > timely fashion at each step, everyone's kinda sick of the case or half- > forgotten it and moved on. > > And - for civil court especially - wait until you've established some > good steady value for your fungible tradeables, otherwise figuring out > what's "equitable" is nigh-impossible (pretty hard even with that). > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
