I'm working on a complete revision of the judicial system. My proto is
not yet complete: there are a couple of rules still to do. Here is what
I have so far, for discussion of the concepts:
{{{
[--------------------------]
[Part I: new judicial rules]
[--------------------------]
Retitle rule 991 to "Judicial Cases Generally", leave its power
unchanged at 2, and amend it to read
A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a
procedure to settle a matter of controversy. There are
subclasses of judicial case with particular features defined by
other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined
by the rules.
The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for
managing judicial activity. The CotC's report includes the
status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have
at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.
Retitle rule 1868 to "Judge Assignment Generally", change its power to
2, and amend it to read
At any time, a judicial case either has no judge assigned to it
(default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge;
this is a persistent status that changes only according to the
rules. To recuse a judge from a case means to deassign em as
judge. To assign a judge to a case implicitly recuses any
existing judge.
At any time, a judicial case either does not require a judge
(default) or requires a judge; this is not a persistent status,
but is evaluated instantaneously.
When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned,
the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by
announcement. Whenever this situation arises the CotC SHALL
make such an assignment as soon as possible.
Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to
be assigned as judge of a judicial case are the active players.
Being unqualified to be assigned as a judge does not inherently
prevent an entity from continuing to be judge if already
assigned.
[TODO: amend R1871: The Standing Court]
Enact a rule with title "Judicial Questions", power 2, and text
Within a judicial case, one or more judicial questions may
arise. Each judicial question is either inapplicable (default)
or applicable; this is not a persistent status but is evaluated
instantaneously. Each judicial question either is open
(default), suspended, or has a particular judgement; this is a
persistent status that changes only according to the rules. The
possible types of judgement for a judicial question vary
according to the type of question.
When a judicial case has an applicable open judicial question,
it requires a judge, and its judge CAN assign a valid judgement
to that question by announcement. Whenever there is a judge
assigned to a judicial case with an applicable open question,
the judge SHALL assign such a judgement to the question as soon
as possible.
Whenever a judicial case has an judicial question that has
remained applicable and open, while the same judge has been
assigned to the case, continuously for the past week, the CotC
CAN recuse that judge by announcement. Whenever a judicial case
has an judicial question that has remained applicable and open,
while the same judge has been assigned to the case, continuously
for the past two weeks, the CotC SHALL so recuse the judge as
soon as possible.
Among the possible judgements of a judicial question, some
subset of them are appropriate. Judgements are appropriate only
where so defined by the rules. A judge SHALL NOT assign an
inappropriate judgement. Where more than one appropriate
judgement is available, the choice between them is at the
judge's discretion.
Retitle rule 591 to "Inquiry Cases", change its power to 1.7, and
amend it to read
There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.
An inquiry case's purpose is to determine the veracity of a
particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any
person, by announcement which includes the statement to be
inquired into.
An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is
always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:
* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and
logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated
* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically
true at the time the inquiry case was initiated
* UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically
undecidable, nonsensical, too vague, or otherwise not capable
of being accurately described as either false or true, at the
time the inquiry case was initiated
* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at
the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the
game
* UNPROVEN, appropriate if the information available to the
judge is insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE,
and UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate.
The judgement of the question in an inquiry case SHOULD guide
future play, including future judgements, but does not directly
affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is
ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant
inquiry case judgements.
Retitle rule 1504 to "Criminal Cases", change its power to 1.7, and
amend it to read
There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.
A criminal case's purpose is to determine the culpability of a
particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach
of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be
initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly
identifies the defendant and specifies the action (which may be
an omission) by which the defendant allegedly breached the
rules.
The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.
During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In the
pre-trial phase the judge SHALL as soon as possible inform the
defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument for
eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the
defendant has been so informed.
During the pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one
person from assignment as judge of the case, by announcement.
If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.
A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is
applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The
valid judgements for this question are:
* ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been
reached in another criminal case with the same defendant and
substantially the same alleged act
* LAW ABIDING, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed
by the rules at the time it allegedly occurred
* INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the
alleged act
* UNPROVEN, appropriate if the information available to the
judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt
whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act
* EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant has good reason why e
could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as
serious as alleged
* GUILTY, appropriate if none of the above judgements is
appropriate
A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is
applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has
a judgement of GUILTY. The valid judgements for the question on
sentencing are:
* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if
any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust
* APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),
appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence
* CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) between 30 days and 60
days multiplied by the power of the highest-power rule
allegedly broken, appropriate for rule breaches of
intermediate severity
* EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by
the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,
appropriate for severe rule breaches amounting to a breach of
trust
If a criminal case has an applicable question on sentencing
which has a judgement, the defendant is hereafter known as the
ninny, and things happen according to the judgement:
* If DISCHARGE, nothing happens.
* If APOLOGY with a set of prescribed words, the ninny SHALL
within 72 hours publish a formal apology of at least 200
words, including all the prescribed words, explaining eir
error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement.
* If any judgement with a tariff, then the judgement is
thereafter either active or not. The judgement is inactive if
the question on sentencing is inapplicable, or if the
judgement was assigned to the question less than a week ago.
In other situations, the judgement is active if and only if
judgements of the same type on the same question have been
active for a total duration less than the tariff. The CotC's
report includes the status of all active judgements.
* While a judgement of type CHOKEY is active, the ninny is in
the chokey. No entity is in the chokey except as required by
this rule.
* While a judgement of type EXILE is active, the ninny is
exiled. No entity is exiled except as required by this rule.
If an exiled entity is ever a player, e is deregistered. An
exiled entity CANNOT register.
An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal
case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a
judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant
by announcement.
Retitle rule 911 to "Appeal Cases", change its power to 1.7, and amend
it to read
There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.
An appeal case's purpose is to determine the appropriateness of
a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and
make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment
of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is
referred to as the prior assignment; the word "prior" in this
rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior
assignment.
An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal
case within the past two weeks, other than an assignment caused
by a judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any player
with 2 support.
[TODO: judge should be a board of multiple persons, not a single
person]
An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is
applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The
valid judgements for the question on disposition are:
* AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for
the prior question
* REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the
appropriateness of the of the prior judgement but the judge
believes that the judge of the prior case can make a better
judgement if given a new opportunity
* REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the
appropriateness of the of the prior judgement
* OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior
question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate
in the prior question and the replacement judgement is
appropriate for the prior question
Initiation of an appeal case renders the prior question
suspended. It remains suspended as long as the question on
disposition in the appeal case has no judgement. When the
question on disposition has a judgement, things happen according
to that judgement:
* if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior
question again
* if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again
* if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused,
and the prior question is rendered open again
* if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement
judgement is assigned to the prior question
[TODO: amend R1742 to a "Civil Cases" rule]
[----------------]
[Part II: repeals]
[----------------]
Repeal rules
889 ("The Clerk of the Courts"),
897 ("Barring Players from Judgement"),
2024 ("Linked Statements"),
2132 ("Excess CFJs"),
698 ("Always an Eligible Judge"),
2133 ("Pragmatic Judicial Assignments"),
408 ("Late Judgement"),
217 ("Judgements Must Accord with the Rules"),
1575 ("Standards of Proof"),
1565 ("Dismissal of a CFJ"),
1826 ("Motions"),
1365 ("Concurring and Dissenting Opinions"),
1564 ("Initiating Appeals"),
1447 ("Final Judgement upon Appeal"),
1804 ("Appeal of Judicial and Sentencing Orders"),
1805 ("Appellate Orders"),
1503 ("Rules Violations"),
908 ("Formal Apologies"), and
2129 ("Dishonor Rolls").
[----------------------------------]
[Part III: consequential amendments]
[----------------------------------]
Amend rule 1794 by deleting the items labelled "(b)" and "(c)" and
then changing the item label "(d)" to "(b)".
[The new judicial system doesn't use orders.]
Amend rule 1769 by replacing the text
nor may any Call for Judgement, Judgement, notice of Appeal,
Decision of Appeals Boards, or Opinion be published by the Clerk
of the Courts
with
nor may any judge be assigned to any judicial case, nor may any
judge assign a judgement to any judicial question
[CotC publication isn't used for anything any more. Judgement itself
is the closest equivalent.]
[--------------------------------]
[Part IV: transitional provisions]
[--------------------------------]
For the purposes of applying rule 1586 to the amendments made in this
proposal,
* "Pre-reform" refers to the state in which the rules and other game
entities were immediately before the adoption of this proposal.
* "Post-reform" refers to the state in which the rules and other game
entities will be immediately after this proposal has completed
taking effect.
* Each pre-reform CFJ continues to exist as a post-reform inquiry
case.
* Each pre-reform CFJ with a judge assigned has the same judge
assigned in its post-reform form.
* For each pre-reform CFJ with an unappealed judgement, the
post-reform inquiry case has a judgement assigned to its question on
veracity, according to this translation:
+ pre-reform FALSE judgement corresponds to post-reform FALSE,
+ pre-reform TRUE judgement corresponds to post-reform TRUE,
+ any other pre-reform judgement corresponds to post-reform
UNDECIDABLE.
* For each pre-reform CFJ which is dismissed (and not subsequently
reopened) without judgement, the post-reform inquiry case has a
judgement of UNDECIDABLE assigned to its question on veracity.
* For each pre-reform CFJ with an incomplete appeal of judgement, the
post-reform inquiry case has its question on veracity suspended.
* For each pre-reform CFJ neither with an unappealed judgement, nor
dismissed (and not subsequently reopened) without judgement, nor
with an incomplete appeal of judgement, the post-reform inquiry case
has its question on veracity open.
* Each pre-reform appeal of anything other than a judgement is a
detail of the CFJ (post-reform inquiry case) to which it is
attached, and does not continue to exist as a distinct post-reform
entity.
* Each pre-reform appeal of a judgement continues to exist as a
post-reform appeal case regarding the assignment of that judgement
to the question on veracity in the inquiry case.
[TODO: more detail probably required on appeals]
}}}
-zefram
