Re: [attn: promotor again] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer

[Gaelan Steele via agora-business]

TTttPF

> On Feb 10, 2020, at 11:33 PM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
> 
> I submit this proposal: {
> Title: Calls with Memoranda
> AI: 2
> Co-authors: Aris, G, Alexis
> 
> Create a new Power-2 rule titled “Administrative Opinions”: {
> An officer may publish an Administrative Opinion for a judicial case, 
> specifying a valid judgement for that case. Officers SHOULD only assign 
> Administrative Opinions to cases with which eir office is primarily 
> concerned. The Arbitor SHOULD record Administrative Opinions along with case 
> judgements. An officer who has published an Administrative Opinion for an 
> unassigned case may, without objection, Administratively Close a case, 
> causing em to become the judge for the case and eir Administrative Opinion to 
> become the judgment for the case. The Arbitor SHOULD NOT assign a judge to a 
> case while proceedings to Administratively Close it are ongoing.
> }
> }
> 
> [This is intended to be used in two ways:
> 1) As a mechanism for officers to record uncontroversial rulings as they come 
> up: If someone does something weird, the officer can call the CFJ, issue an 
> Opinion, and move to Administratively Close in the same message. In this 
> case, this basically is a memorandum that gets recorded in the CFJ log.
> 2) As a mechanism to uncontroversially resolve CFJs initiated by someone else.
> 
> Of course, if there’s any controversy, someone can object and we go through 
> the normal CFJ system.]
> 
> Gaelan
> 
> 
>> On Feb 9, 2020, at 3:24 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion 
>> <agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Here’s another proto: {
>> Title: Calls with Memoranda
>> AI: 2
>> Co-authors: Aris, G, Alexis
>> 
>> Create a new Power-2 rule titled “Administrative Opinions”: {
>> An officer may publish an Administrative Opinion for a judicial case, 
>> specifying a valid judgement for that case. Officers SHALL [SHOULD?] only 
>> assign Administrative Opinions to cases with which eir office is primarily 
>> concerned. An officer who has published an Administrative Opinion for an 
>> unassigned case may, without objection, Administratively Close a case, 
>> causing em to become the judge for the case and eir Administrative Opinion 
>> to become the judgment for the case. The Arbitor SHOULD NOT assign a judge 
>> to a case while proceedings to Administratively Close it are ongoing.
>> }
>> }
>> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>>>> On Feb 9, 2020, at 3:01 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 17:59, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
>>> <agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org <mailto:agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org>> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> I mean, didn’t we just do that, without any explicit rule at all? All we 
>>>> need is an informal policy that we go with the officer’s interpretation 
>>>> unless a CfJ decides otherwise.
>>>> 
>>>> Alternatively, here’s a lightweight attempt to implement memoranda, either 
>>>> as an alternative to the above informal mechanism or because it becomes a 
>>>> dispute: I create the proposal {
>>>> Title: Calls for Memoranda
>>>> AI: 2
>>>> Co-authors: Aris, G
>>>> 
>>>> Amend rule 991 by appending “All other things being equal, the Arbitor 
>>>> SHOULD assign Calls for Judgement to the officer most concerned with its 
>>>> content.” after the sentence "The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time 
>>>> such that all interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to 
>>>> judge.”
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>>> Maybe if we wanted to get fancy, we could implement some way for the 
>>>> officer to assign themselves, so they could note their interpretation in 
>>>> the CfJ log simply by calling and resolving the CfJ in the same message.
>>>> 
>>>> Gaelan
>>> 
>>> I strongly oppose this. In my view, inquiry cases should generally
>>> *not* be the officer making the initial interpretation, at least not
>>> preferentially. Inquiry cases are effectively the fallback appeal
>>> mechanism, and should remain a balanced system. I would rather see a
>>> separate path for administrative interpretations.
>>> 
>>> -Alexis
>> 
>