Requiring notice and comment would make it a bit more complicated and time-consuming to judge a CFJ, which might not make sense for simple ones. How about this: * The judge assigned to a CFJ CAN publish a draft judgement, and is ENCOURAGED to do so for difficult cases. * Publishing a draft judgement extends the deadline for publishing the final judgement (with some limit).
This could work with or without incentives like the one Jason Cobb suggests. Alternatively, I wonder if it's enough to just try to establish (or maintain? re-establish? I'm not sure what the history is) more of a tradition of judges self-filing motions for reconsideration like G. is considering doing. On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 21:29, Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I personally like the idea of requiring judgments to be published before > becoming binding. I think that worked out well for everyone when > Falsifian did something similar (although less formally, of course). > > You mention apathy being an issue for gathering actual arguments in > response to a CFJ. Perhaps a solution would be to permit judges to award > Coins (or some other asset) to people who submit helpful arguments (or > counterarguments during the comment period, in the system you describe)? > Although I worry that that might create perverse incentives. > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/13/19 5:15 PM, omd wrote: > > Idea: Create a Rules-defined "notice and comment" process for judgements. > > > > Since I became active, there have been two judgements in CFJs about > > minor scams I attempted (3728 and 3833). > > > > The first one I had a minor quibble with, so I moved for > > reconsideration, but nobody bothered to support it. I think there's a > > bit of a stigma against supporting reconsideration, perhaps because it > > seems to suggest that the judge did a bad job. Adding to that is > > apathy: deciding whether to support reconsideration requires taking > > time to examine the original judgement and the counterargument, while > > ignoring it is free. Perhaps some people did examine my quibble and > > just decided it was bogus, but if so, nobody cared enough to make the > > point in writing. > > > > In the second one, as it turns out, I found every point to be > > completely reasonable and well-justified. Indeed, if someone else had > > tried the scam and I had been the judge, I might have reasoned > > similarly, though probably not as elegantly. (I wouldn't have > > attempted the scam if I didn't think it had a decent chance of being > > upheld as valid, but that's a lower standard than thinking it > > definitely should be.) > > > > Yet while I was reading the judgement, it occurred to me that it was > > making quite a lot of points that were now in some sense "set in > > stone" – deciding the case itself as well as setting precedent – > > without anyone having had the chance to critique them first. Of > > course, if I had had any objections I could have moved for > > reconsideration again, but the same stigma/apathy combo as before > > would likely be an obstacle, especially if my objections were minor. > > > > Which makes me wonder if we could change the rules to make judgements > > a bit more of an interactive process. Something like: > > > > - The judge files a proto-judgement; > > > > - There is a week (or maybe four days?) during which any other player can > > file > > a formal counterargument; > > > > - When the week passes, if there are no counterarguments then the judgement > > becomes final. If there are counterarguments, the judge has another > > week to > > publish an updated judgement which must briefly address each of them. > > There's no pressure for em to change eir outcome or reasoning if e > > doesn't > > find them compelling, but e should briefly explain why e disagrees. > > > > Comparing to the U.S. judicial system, judges do typically file > > written opinions without first circulating drafts, and they're free to > > include novel theories in those opinions which none of the parties had > > a chance to address. But in my understanding, they usually don't, > > largely because of a few differences: > > > > First, every real-world case has at least two parties who file > > thorough briefs arguing for their side and responding to the other > > side's arguments; collectively, the briefs tend to explore the issue > > thoroughly. In Agora, thanks to apathy (and the pay scale), CFJs > > often have only brief comments from the caller, or sometimes no > > arguments at all, by the time they get to a judge to rule on. Now, > > that's not the judge's fault. It's arguably the responsibility of all > > parties with a vested interest in a CFJ's outcome to file arguments in > > advance of judgement; personally, I'm not proud of neglecting to > > submit any arguments regarding either of the CFJs I mentioned before. > > Yet even when there is a decent amount of argument, it rarely gets > > anywhere close to the level of thoroughness with which lawyers address > > the issues in real-world cases, so it's inevitable that judges end up > > having to come up with more theories on their own. > > > > Second, real-world cases (at least the interesting ones) typically > > have oral argument before getting to the point of a written opinion. > > Especially in appellate court, but also in trial court when there are > > questions of law (rather than fact), this tends to involve the judge > > frequently interrupting the lawyers' arguments to ask questions, often > > pointed questions which amount to "how do you respond to argument X?". > > This effectively gives the judge an opportunity to try out eir > > reasoning on the lawyers before incorporating it into a written > > opinion. We don't have any equivalent of that. > > > > Third, binding precedents are only set by appellate court rulings, > > which are always decided by a panel of multiple judges, not just one. > > > > Fourth, since the real-world legal system has orders of magnitude more > > precedent, there just aren't many cases in the first place where the > > judge is expected to come up with a legal framework out of whole > > cloth, as opposed to deciding which of multiple competing precedents > > is most applicable to the circumstances, or how to apply a precedent > > to circumstances that are slightly different. So there's more of a > > roadmap as to what issues the judge is going to address. > > > > Anyway, I realized that while my idea is unlike the U.S. *judicial* > > system, it does resemble how notice and comment works in federal > > rulemaking. An agency first publishes a proposed rule; this starts a > > 30 to 180 day period during which interested parties can formally > > submit comments. When the period is up, the agency can publish a > > final version of the rule, accompanied by an analysis which is > > required to "respond in a reasoned manner to the comments received, > > explain how the agency resolved any significant problems raised by > > such comments, and to show how that resolution led the agency to the > > ultimate rule". [1] It need not address each comment individually > > (which may be infeasible, especially in rare cases like the FCC's net > > neutrality rules that received millions of comments!), but just go > > through the significant points raised by them. > > > > My outline above *does* require judges to address each counterargument > > individually(-ish), which is a bit different; I could change that, but > > on the other hand, such a requirement is much less burdensome in an > > Agoran context where having, say, 3 different players submit formal > > counterarguments would already be an extraordinary case. > > > > Oh, and... my proposed process would probably replace motions to > > reconsider, since it's more or less a motion to reconsider which > > anyone can file by announcement, but with more structure and hopefully > > less stigma. The Moot process would probably remain unchanged. > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > [1] > > https://administrativelaw.uslegal.com/administrative-agency-rulemaking/response-to-comment/
