On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > So I think: > > - I was thinking of bringing back rests/blots whatever the name,
Which do people prefer? Blots sound better to me, but I'm open to suggestions. > - equity suits are a fair-sized hassle, others may disagree, We do need something, but criminal suits (which are more like civil suits in some ways) might be enough. > - I do not want to lose the current flexibility in judicial assignments, > random is a pain to manage, I was thinking that just bringing back Justiciar would probably cover it. I'd probably have em track blots, as everyone else has a lot on eir plate, and I'd like the proposal not to increase the number of offices. > - the referee is terribly designed, having fixed blots for infraction > notices would be a big improvement, The referee represents the simplest pragmatic system that's even slightly fair. The office served pretty well when we had low activity, and particularly without the kind of complex contract litigation we're likely to start having now. That being said, you're right that it wasn't a great system. Too much pressure on one officeholder, and too much power in one place. > - neutral on the appeals system, both have their plusses/minuses, The more I think about it the more I'd like Agora as a whole to act as a sort of Supreme Court. An appeal that high should have a fairly high bar and be a last resort. > > 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. It's fascinating. One thing I was planing to do with my proposal was to institute some concept of a judgment becoming final (so we don't have to say "when the judgement has been assigned for ? days" all over the place). Those orders represent an interesting take on the concept. They do add quite a bit of complexity, so I don't want to flat out reenact them for now, but I'll look at them when designing the finalization system. -Aris > 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 >> >
