Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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 {

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

> 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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

> 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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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 >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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? > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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"

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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: > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

> 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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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.”

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

> 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

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I create the AI-2 proposal “Judicial Reform” by Gaelan 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