So I think:
- I was thinking of bringing back rests/blots whatever the name, - equity suits are a fair-sized hassle, others may disagree, - I do not want to lose the current flexibility in judicial assignments, random is a pain to manage, - the referee is terribly designed, having fixed blots for infraction notices would be a big improvement, - neutral on the appeals system, both have their plusses/minuses, And - go back to the November 2002 archives and look up the "orders" category of the ruleset (eg judicial orders and sentencing orders etc) - there's a process system worth looking at. On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > We're not exactly doing anything wrong, but our current system is a > bit underdeveloped. Our current system struggles with complex contract > lawsuits (why did we feel the need to do what we did with pledges?), > and is completely unable to handle civil/equity suits. The referee > needs to award all sentences emself (remember what happened when the > Referee was inactive for too long?). We're also currently relying on > the referee to be practically omni-benevolent. We can challenge a > penalty as being wrong, or grossly out of scope, but our current > system lacks the nuance of the criminal system in place in 2010. > Notice, for instance, the detailed requirements in Rule 1504 for a > guilty verdict. Having one person run your criminal system certainly > simplifies things, but courts protect due process in a way that is > helpful for complex cases. Judicial systems are also less vulnerable > to accusations of bias, because judges are semi-randomly chosen (the > office of Justiciar prevented against abuse, as did rules about case > assignment). This means not only that there are better feelings all > around, but also that players feel more comfortable permitting strong > sentences. At certain points we trusted judges enough to allow them to > deregister players in extreme cases (not that I'm necessarily > advocating for the return of that particular sentence). The appeals > system of the time was less heavy handed than the current appeal to > the people, allowing an appeals court of three to overturn and correct > a verdict, whereas we can only reassign it to a single judge, and we > need to go through an entire vote to do that. I'm not sure we should > completely do away with an appeal to everyone as a final resort, but > it should really be the last resort. Rests provide a useful way of > raising funds through expungement fees, while also making sure that > punishments are cumulative, rather than instantaneous. Overall, the > 2010 judicial system was extensible, nuanced, and fair. It's not > exactly that the current system completely lacks those traits, merely > that the 2010 system is significantly better in those respects for the > current system. Also, the paradigm change sounds fun to me. > > -Aris > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:27 PM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'd like to know what we're currently doing wrong that 2010-Agora was doing > > right? > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Aris Merchant > > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I'm getting tired of waiting for others to release judicial reform > >> proposals, and am considering writing my own. As a loyal member (am I > >> the head?) of the "make Agora 2010 again" party, I suggest reenacting > >> the judicial system here [1] . I'd probably simplify it somewhat, in > >> particular removing some of the restrictions on CFJ assignment. > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> [1] > >> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2010-December/008377.html > >> (sorry, I couldn't find it on mail archive) > >> > >> -Aris > > > > > > > > > > -- > > From V.J. Rada >
