On Tue, 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).
I like power to come with responsibility, and vice versa. > 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! My thinking would be an office who's job it would be to help each side do their research and lay out their arguments. In some cases arguing for each side doesn't make much sense. On the other hand, supplying precedents to back people's arguments when applicable is always helpful. -Aris
