I’m intrigued by the idea. I’m a little concerned that it’s TOO vague—are these rulings CFJ-like (a means of agreeing on what happened platonically, but with no actual platonic effect) or ratification-like? How is arbitrariness and capriciousness defined/judged? What about “official area of concern?”
This seems like a particularly bad place for CFJ hell. When we inevitably end up with a dispute over whether a memorandum is valid, can that dispute itself be resolved by memorandum, by either the original officeholder or the Arbitor? The idea doesn’t seem immediately bad (although I’m not sure I prefer it either) but I think such an important area is not suitable for the “write something simple and let CFJs figure it out” strategy. Gaelan > On Jan 8, 2020, at 9:09 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 8:24 PM Aris Merchant > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:12 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion >>> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:00 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion >>> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >>>> This gets me thinking of a potential big and maybe-interesting-maybe-not >>>> big change to the order of things... what if officers presumptively had the >>>> ability to rule on their areas of gamestate, in a more active manner than >>>> our ratification system? Possibly a bit more of a shift towards a pragmatic >>>> philosophy as well. >>> >>> We've had a couple conversations along similar lines in the last year >>> or two and people were generally positive. Specifically two ideas >>> came up: (1) making each officer the "primary judge" on disputes >>> about their reports, with some language that judges can only overrule >>> the officers if their decisions are "arbitrary and capricious" (or >>> some other legal standard of choice that we can set precedents about - >>> "arbitrary and capricious" is one used in U.S. government >>> regulations). (2) dividing the ruleset itself so that rule categories >>> are more binding, and rules precedence works as "category then power" >>> (e.g. any rule in the "economy" category has precedence over >>> "non-economy" category when it comes to coins; then within the economy >>> category you look at power, and the officer has some extra abilities >>> within their defining category). >>> >>> I think the only barrier is no one sat down and did the deep work of >>> implementation... >> >> A minimalist proto along the lines of #1 follows. This could be a >> complex interconnected set of 15 rules, but I think it would be more >> fun to leave it as minimal as possible at let the judiciary sort out >> the details. >> >> -Aris >> -- >> Title: Administrative Adjudication >> Adoption index: 3.0 >> Author: Aris >> Co-authors: >> >> Enact a new rule, with power power 3.0, entitled "Administrative >> Adjudication", >> with the following text: >> >> Each officer has the power to, with notice, issue a memorandum, >> which shall consist in a public document and shall, once issued, >> have the power to resolve bindingly any matter within eir official area of >> concern, insofar as that memorandum is neither arbitrary nor capricious. > > Come on everyone, comments? > > -Aris
