On Thu, 13 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 15:23 -0500, Nic Evans wrote: > > (I already have a good deal of text written for these, but wanted > > feedback on the abstracts before getting too committed.) > > > > Judicial Expansion > > ------------------ > > > > Players opt-in to the judge list. When a judge is needed, assign to the > > first on the list that isn't ineligible, then move them to the end of > > the list. If the proto below also passes, both CFJs and Criminal Cases > > are assigned using the same list, keeping the workload for judges balanced. > > I currently try to pick appropriate judges for CFJs, while keeping > things balanced. I'm not necessarily opposed to this change, but it'd > likely lead to a more even distribution of cases to judges, which might > or might not be seen as a good thing. Note also that it effectively > allows a CFJ caller to "choose their judge" via changing the timing of > the CFJ.
Do you think Favoring/Disfavoring should still be a thing in a new system? I'm of two minds: on one hand I like the idea of "forcing" someone to put their mind to whatever comes up as it leads to diversity of opinion; on the other hand I think we get better judgements (and better avoid lateness recusals) when the judge actually cares. Just on past experience I'd lean towards the latter (i.e. keeping favoring). -G.
