I believe we should leave the CFJ protection, but I also think a meta-agreement on a backup procedure would be helpful. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 24, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote: >> I agree that the protection doesn't work, and should probably just be >> repealed. I also think it would considerably improve the aesthetics of >> rule 217 (if I had my way, I'd additionally move the second paragraph >> of rule 217 into a separate rule so that the original could be just >> that pair of sentences at the start, although I can't deny that it >> probably belongs there rather than elsewhere); rule 217 is fairly >> unique in containing probably the only paragraph of Agora's ruleset >> that works as a standalone nomic ruleset by itself (and the nomic in >> question, Nomic 217, survived for quite a while, IIRC). > > Definitely interested in re-formatted R217, especially considering its > very different formulation in the past! > > On the judgement side, is there anything about judgements worth putting > at power-3, as a principle (not necessarily in R217)? Given that the > highest power for the judgement system is 2, and the CFJ system is still > fundamental to Agora if not to nomic? > > E.g. That CFJ-calling is our dispute resolution system and protected, > that we want to protect our method of starting with a Single Judge, etc.? > (Long judgement-writing being a pretty strong part of our culture). > > This is for Inquiry cases I'm thinking, the punishment system is now > more removed from CFJs and any protections there (double-jeopardy, > criminal appeals) would be a different subject. > > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
