On 07/13/17 17:44, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > 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. > > > >
A compromise that I considered (and rejected just because the other is simpler): Have three pools: Nonjudges, Available Judges, Unavailable Judges. You can choose anyone from the Available Judges pool, which also makes the Unavailable. When you're out of Available Judges, everyone in the Unavailable pool becomes Available. I think there was something similar to this when I first joined.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
