On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Bah.
>
> I retract “Judicial Reform.”
>
> I create the AI-2 proposal “Judicial Reform v2” by Gaelan, Aris and Quazie
> with the following text: <
>
> Amend R991 “Calls for Judgement” by replacing the last paragraph with {
>
> “Judge Status”
On Wed, 31 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
On May 31, 2017, at 12:03 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
Probably. The error message doesn't say _why_ it doesn't verify, so it
might also be some mismatch with the message I guess (does the data
include the Subject:?). Your certificate is saved to
.alpi
This is better in my interface.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 31, 2017, at 3:14 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
>
>
>> On May 31, 2017, at 12:03 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 31 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>
However, your m
I also experience a signature error in regards to Gaelan’s messages.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 31, 2017, at 2:14 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
>> I'm not causing any trouble, am I? I'm using Ap
> On May 31, 2017, at 12:03 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
>>> However, your messages curiously often makes Alpine give a loud beep and a
>>> complaint that their signature doesn't verify...
>> I sign my messages with a self-signed cert, which probab
On Wed, 31 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
However, your messages curiously often makes Alpine give a loud beep and a
complaint that their signature doesn't verify...
I sign my messages with a self-signed cert, which probably doesn't help.
Probably. The error message doesn't say _why_ it does
> On May 31, 2017, at 11:14 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>
>> I'm not causing any trouble, am I? I'm using Apple Mail.
>
> You seem to top post, which makes it harder to break things _too_ horribly -
> and I say this despite preferring inline comm
On Wed, 31 May 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
I did write that message on mobile--happily willing to blame my phone
assuming this email looks correct.
Definitely much better.
Greetings,
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>
> And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.
>>
>
> [No distinction between quoted and unquoted parts, whatsoever, in either
> version]
>
> A minor suggestion from an o
On Wed, 31 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
I'm not causing any trouble, am I? I'm using Apple Mail.
You seem to top post, which makes it harder to break things _too_ horribly
- and I say this despite preferring inline commenting when it's properly
formatted.
However, your messages curiously
On Tue, 30 May 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I think splitting the "assigner" and the "recordkeepor" is a good split to
> > keep, whether informally or formally (I plan to keep up the recordkeeping
> > for a bit, anyway). Maybe the assigner
I'm not causing any trouble, am I? I'm using Apple Mail.
Gaelan
> On May 31, 2017, at 2:47 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 May 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>>
>> Someone nuke gmail headquarters, please.
>
> Sorry I snapped, but it looks to me like half of the gmail-users have
> ind
On Wed, 31 May 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
Someone nuke gmail headquarters, please.
Sorry I snapped, but it looks to me like half of the gmail-users have
individually different garbled email formats, with my strategy for finding
the unquoted parts of each of them failing on the next, my eyes
On Tue, 30 May 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.
[No distinction between quoted and unquoted parts, whatsoever, in either
version]
A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder language
on those dismissal
The previous version of my Massive Reform Plan™ is here [1]. I'm still
caught on step 1, partly because I'm slow and partly because people
keep coming up with objections to every version of my draft :) (next
version will be v5, but it's probably more like v7 or v8 in reality).
Here is the current P
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
>> If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G. comes back
>> and wants eir post
>
> I think splitting the "assigner" and the "recordkeepor" is a good split to
> keep, whether informally or
IMHO, the current informal system of gratuitous arguments work fine; I see
little point in assigning someone the job of arguing for a particular side when
we have plenty of arguments for both sides (assuming there is some hope of both
sides being correct).
Gaelan
> On May 30, 2017, at 6:39 PM,
On Tue, 30 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G. comes back
> and wants eir post
I think splitting the "assigner" and the "recordkeepor" is a good split to
keep, whether informally or formally (I plan to keep up the recordkeeping
for a bit, anyway)
I didn’t mean that minute, I just meant in general. This is one of my problems
with email, it is interpreted as quick, but really it is more equivalent to fax
or memos than phone calls.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 30, 2017, at 8:40 PM, Aris
On May 30, 2017 7:39 PM, "Aris Merchant"
wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:21 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I like the idea of a public defender, but their salary should be paid by
> the callers.
Agreed. We should have fees for cases (a
I will in a few hours, but I really do have to go right now.
-Aris
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:37 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Could you share what is involved in your Massive Reform Plan and how you
> would allow others to help?
>
>
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:21 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I like the idea of a public defender, but their salary should be paid by
> the callers.
Agreed. We should have fees for cases (although Agora can pay if someone
can't), which shou
Could you share what is involved in your Massive Reform Plan and how you would
allow others to help?
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 30, 2017, at 8:36 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:28 PM Publius Scribonius Schola
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:28 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> How would people feel about reimplementing a formal criminal and civil
> court system in addition to CFJs?
Some version of that is already part 3 of my Massive Reform Plan (it's
n
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:25 PM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I think normal threading handles voting fine (and subject changes may
> break threads, making more of a mess). I agree about tagging the others.
>
That's what I was going to discuss later. In brief, marking pends would
only be required if in
How would people feel about reimplementing a formal criminal and civil court
system in addition to CFJs?
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 30, 2017, at 8:27 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
>
> Actually what could be interesting is
Actually what could be interesting is make a system of solicitor and defender,
in which the caller pends it, then the solicitor argues for FALSE, defender for
TRUE, then the judge decides.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 30, 2017, at 8:25 PM,
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:07 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM grok (caleb vines)
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 30 May
I think normal threading handles voting fine (and subject changes may break
threads, making more of a mess). I agree about tagging the others.
Gaelan
> On May 30, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM grok (caleb vines)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On May
Tags would be very helpful for sorting.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 30, 2017, at 8:07 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM grok (caleb vines)
> wrote:
>
>
> On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie" wrote:
> On Tu
I like the idea of a public defender, but their salary should be paid by the
callers.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 30, 2017, at 7:59 PM, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>
>
>
> On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie" wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at
On May 30, 2017 7:07 PM, "Aris Merchant"
wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM grok (caleb vines)
wrote:
>
>
> On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie" wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > I'll let ais523 comment on
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM grok (caleb vines)
wrote:
>
>
> On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie" wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
>>
>> (f
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM grok (caleb vines)
wrote:
>
>
> On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie" wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
>>
>> (f
On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie" wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
>
> (final?) followup: I still disagree with the wide/narrow judging idea
> (both o
I think in general, we should try and lessen the need for officers and increase
the number of non-tracked concepts and/or self-tracking concepts.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 30, 2017, at 7:25 PM, Quazie wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
>
> (final?) followup: I still disagree with the wide/narrow judging idea
> (both on the principle and as a 'too much work for
On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
(final?) followup: I still disagree with the wide/narrow judging idea
(both on the principle and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds).
We purposefully built a lot of flexibility
On Tue, 30 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I don't see why the pre-case formatting work is needed. The only
> difference is that ais would need to wait 2 days before assigning
> the ID/judge (and take into account any BUS replies to the CFJ).
> At the end of the day, however, if this will caus
I don't see why the pre-case formatting work is needed. The only difference is
that ais would need to wait 2 days before assigning the ID/judge (and take into
account any BUS replies to the CFJ). At the end of the day, however, if this
will cause some additional work on behalf of the officers, t
On Tue, 30 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > On May 30, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > It wasn't clear. But being stuck with a CFJ you don't want is part of the
> > job and random draw of being a judge, helping to clear the load. (we
> > should definitely have judicial compen
> On May 30, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> It wasn't clear. But being stuck with a CFJ you don't want is part of the
> job and random draw of being a judge, helping to clear the load. (we
> should definitely have judicial compensation/salaries though).
I disagree:
- The lack of
On Tue, 30 May 2017, Nicholas Evans wrote:
> What about an analogous pending system for CFJs? Anyone can submit but
> they only get assigned to a judge after someone has paid the fee. The
> fee should be low and stable. The judge gets paid the fee upon
> judgment. Even 2 shinies is probably en
What about an analogous pending system for CFJs? Anyone can submit but they
only get assigned to a judge after someone has paid the fee. The fee should
be low and stable. The judge gets paid the fee upon judgment. Even 2
shinies is probably enough to slow tge pace down without stopping it, and
beca
On Tue, 30 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I don't know if this was clear, but the intent of the proposal was
> to avoid people getting "stuck" with CFJs they don't wish to judge.
> Under this proposal, the only people bothered by a frivolous CFJ
> are ais523 and anyone interested in judging
I don't know if this was clear, but the intent of the proposal was to avoid
people getting "stuck" with CFJs they don't wish to judge. Under this proposal,
the only people bothered by a frivolous CFJ are ais523 and anyone interested in
judging (assuming others don't mind skipping over the DIS me
I might be in favor of a change such as`CFJs SHOULD be initiated in a newly
named thread, beginning with [CFJ]` so fewer CFJs get `lost`
That might make things easier to get a small handle on?
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 1:48 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Since I mentioned it in a recent message, tho
Since I mentioned it in a recent message, thought I'd offer some
specific comments.
When I had the whole Arbitor job (assign and report), the largest
obstacle was formatting the cases at the beginning (collecting them
into a big case log and formatting the random conversations into
arguments, be
I like this proposal. It fixes the problem of growing caseloads for
judges while still ensuring that important CFJs (those that multiple
people have an interest in) get judged.
However this proposal does not address the problem of growing caseload
for Arbitor and recordkeeping of CFJs. The Arb
I like this, but I think also adding procedural DISMISSALS without objection
would be a helpful addition.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 30, 2017, at 2:41 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> Bah.
>
> I retract “Judicial Reform.”
>
> I create the
I retract “Judicial Reform.”
I create the AI-2 proposal “Judicial Reform v2” by Gaelan, Aris and Quazie with
the following text: <
Amend R991 “Calls for Judgement” by replacing the last paragraph with {
“Judge Status” is a player switch tracked by the Arbitor in eir monthly report,
with valid va
The Academia Proposal Contest is there so perhaps have two levels of
Judges? Casual and High/Pro/Superior? Make a Judge-Degree? (Can just be a
CFJ test)
I definitely think newcomers can handle the more mundane CFJs like
CFJ: "can I do this?"
*Judge points to a rule, sometimes even two.*
"Yes yo
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 6:17 PM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> On May 29, 2017, at 6:04 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Missing a close parenthesis. Why do we need None? Surely any player
> could occasionally want to judge a case, so the distinction seems
> unnecessar
> On May 29, 2017, at 6:04 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> Missing a close parenthesis. Why do we need None? Surely any player
> could occasionally want to judge a case, so the distinction seems
> unnecessary.
Fair.
> I'd also make Wide the default, although that is open to
> debate. The judicia
54 matches
Mail list logo
