On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 10:07 AM Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > Aris wrote: > > 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. > > I like the idea too! > > Regarding the implementation, these are very similar to regulations. Why not > reuse the entity class? Something like this: > > Each officer CAN, with notice, enact a memorandum, which is a type of > regulation. A memorandum has the power to resolve bindingly any matter > within its office's area of concern. > > An attempt to enact a memorandum is INEFFECTIVE if it is arbitrary or > capricious. > > /* maybe */ A memorandum is automatically repealed when all matters it > regards are resolved. > > This has the advantage of also automatically tracking memoranda and providing > mechanisms to amend or repeal them.
TBH, I was thinking that they would be mostly instantaneous. However, you're right that some might not be. I'll allow both. -Aris > Gaelan wrote: > > 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?” > > My understanding of the original proto was that the rulings were supposed to > be binding, i.e. capable of modifying the gamestate, and that the other > things were intentionally left vague to allow judges to rule in the best > interests of the game. > > Gaelan wrote: > > 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? > > This is a good point - if judges are supposed to have authority over > memoranda, the rule needs some way to stop memoranda from having authority > over judges. Unsure of the best way of doing that. > > -twg
