Re: DIS: [Proto] Judicial Diversification
Hi Aris, have you ever considered the blessings of the mysterious and supernatural? I highly recommend a*Scam Protection Charm* (for only 5 coins!) - it has powerful astral magic in it, I'm sure you can feel it too - to protect this future Proposal from any scams that may befall it. That's not all, if you'd like to be extra prepared, I can even perform a *Scam Banishment Ritual *(for only 30 coins!) to further cleanse it of any evil that might have snuck into it. If you're interested in more, feel free to check out the .:*~*【THE MYSTICAL MENAGERIE】*~*:. for all of your Agoran occult needs On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:09 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/7/2020 8:29 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > Anyhow, I retract "Judicial Diversification", but I'd still like to > > get it in before the economic changeover. > > Speaking as Arbitor, can we not rush this one? Lots is changing now and > don't want to hurry just to save a pend. > > -G. > >
Re: DIS: [Proto] Judicial Diversification
On 6/7/2020 8:29 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > Anyhow, I retract "Judicial Diversification", but I'd still like to > get it in before the economic changeover. Speaking as Arbitor, can we not rush this one? Lots is changing now and don't want to hurry just to save a pend. -G.
Re: DIS: [Proto] Judicial Diversification
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 5:55 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 4:55 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 10:40 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 6/7/2020 10:35 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 01:09, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > > > > wrote: > > > >> This is intended to lay the groundwork for adding other types of > > > judicial > > > >> cases later. Thoughts? > > > > > > > > Do you have any examples in mind? Also, I'm curious how this was done > > > > in the past; I remember hearing about Agora once having a common law > > > > system for resolving disputes equitably or something like that. > > > > > > Inquiry cases: Standard TRUE/FALSE/etc: > > > > > > Equity cases: Contracts, judgement is something like "to make up for the > > > contract breach I'm transferring X coins from party A to party B" > > > > > > Criminal cases: GUILTY/NOT GUILTY, procedure includes two sets of > > > arguments (prosecution and defense). > > > > > > I'd add appellate cases, allowing you to appeal the judgement. The higher > > court can then judge "AFFIRM" or "OVERTURN", and if it's the later they can > > change the judgement. > > > > -Aris > > > > Comment: I think you should not "lay the groundwork" like this without > actually adding at least one of those types of cases (I think Criminal > Cases are worse than what we have now, equity cases and appellate cases are > cool and good though) I disagree re criminal cases, but I've written a proto for generalized equity cases. I'm highly disinclined to make them part of the same proposal though because people might think that other types of cases should exist but that my implementation of equity cases is bad. Cf. the UNIX philosophy. Anyhow, I retract "Judicial Diversification", but I'd still like to get it in before the economic changeover. -Aris
Re: DIS: [Proto] Judicial Diversification
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 4:55 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 10:40 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On 6/7/2020 10:35 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 01:09, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > > > wrote: > > >> This is intended to lay the groundwork for adding other types of > > judicial > > >> cases later. Thoughts? > > > > > > Do you have any examples in mind? Also, I'm curious how this was done > > > in the past; I remember hearing about Agora once having a common law > > > system for resolving disputes equitably or something like that. > > > > Inquiry cases: Standard TRUE/FALSE/etc: > > > > Equity cases: Contracts, judgement is something like "to make up for the > > contract breach I'm transferring X coins from party A to party B" > > > > Criminal cases: GUILTY/NOT GUILTY, procedure includes two sets of > > arguments (prosecution and defense). > > > > I'd add appellate cases, allowing you to appeal the judgement. The higher > court can then judge "AFFIRM" or "OVERTURN", and if it's the later they can > change the judgement. > > -Aris > Comment: I think you should not "lay the groundwork" like this without actually adding at least one of those types of cases (I think Criminal Cases are worse than what we have now, equity cases and appellate cases are cool and good though) -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: [Proto] Judicial Diversification
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 10:40 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/7/2020 10:35 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 01:09, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > > wrote: > >> This is intended to lay the groundwork for adding other types of > judicial > >> cases later. Thoughts? > > > > Do you have any examples in mind? Also, I'm curious how this was done > > in the past; I remember hearing about Agora once having a common law > > system for resolving disputes equitably or something like that. > > Inquiry cases: Standard TRUE/FALSE/etc: > > Equity cases: Contracts, judgement is something like "to make up for the > contract breach I'm transferring X coins from party A to party B" > > Criminal cases: GUILTY/NOT GUILTY, procedure includes two sets of > arguments (prosecution and defense). > > I'd add appellate cases, allowing you to appeal the judgement. The higher court can then judge "AFFIRM" or "OVERTURN", and if it's the later they can change the judgement. -Aris
Re: DIS: [Proto] Judicial Diversification
On 6/7/2020 10:35 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 01:09, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: >> This is intended to lay the groundwork for adding other types of judicial >> cases later. Thoughts? > > Do you have any examples in mind? Also, I'm curious how this was done > in the past; I remember hearing about Agora once having a common law > system for resolving disputes equitably or something like that. Inquiry cases: Standard TRUE/FALSE/etc: Equity cases: Contracts, judgement is something like "to make up for the contract breach I'm transferring X coins from party A to party B" Criminal cases: GUILTY/NOT GUILTY, procedure includes two sets of arguments (prosecution and defense).
Re: DIS: [Proto] Judicial Diversification
On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 01:09, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > This is intended to lay the groundwork for adding other types of judicial > cases later. Thoughts? Do you have any examples in mind? Also, I'm curious how this was done in the past; I remember hearing about Agora once having a common law system for resolving disputes equitably or something like that. - Falsifian
DIS: [Proto] Judicial Diversification
This is intended to lay the groundwork for adding other types of judicial cases later. Thoughts? -Aris --- Title: Judicial Diversification Adoption index: 2.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: Amend Rule 991, "Calls for Judgement", to read in full: Calls for Judgement (syn. Judicial Cases, CFJs) are the primary method for the adjudication of disputes; the types of judicial case, the procedures for initiating them, and the valid judgements are as specified by other rules. When a person initiates a Call for Judgement, e CAN optionally bar one person from the case by announcement. At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or assigned exactly one judgement. The Arbitor is an office, responsible for the administration of justice in a manner that is fair for emself, if not for the rest of Agora. Judge is an untracked CFJ switch with possible values of any person or "unassigned" (default). To "assign" a CFJ to a person is to flip that CFJ's judge to that person. To "remove" or "recuse" a person from a being the judge of a CFJ is to flip that CFJ's judge from that person to unassigned. When a CFJ's judge is unassigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any eligible player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so in a timely fashion. The players eligible to be assigned as judge are all active players not explicitly declared ineligible by the rules. The initiator and the person barred (if any) are ineligible. The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge, and SHALL avoid assigning players who are not interested in judging as much as possible. If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to judge that CFJ CAN assign it to emself without 3 objections. When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN assign a valid judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so in a timely fashion after this becomes possible. The judge SHOULD assign an appropriate judgement. The Arbitor's weekly report includes a summary of recent judicial case activity, including open and recently-judged cases, recent judicial assignments, and a list of players interested in judging. Retitle Rule 591, "Delivering Judgements", to "Inquiry Cases". Amend Rule 591, "Inquiry Cases", to read in full: Inquiry cases are a type of CFJ. Any person can initiate an inquiry case by announcement, specifying a statement to be inquired into. The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based on the facts and legal situation at the time the inquiry case was initiated, not taking into account any events since that time: * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false. * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true. * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement is not relevant to the game or is an overly hypothetical extrapolation of the game or its rules to conditions that don't actually exist, or if it can be trivially determined from the outcome of another (possibly still undecided) judicial case that was not itself judged IRRELEVANT. * PARADOXICAL, appropriate if the statement is logically undecidable as a result of a paradox or or other irresolvable logical situation. PARADOXICAL is not appropriate if IRRELEVANT is appropriate, nor is it appropriate if the undecidability arises from the case itself or in reference to it. * INSUFFICIENT, appropriate if the case does not come with supporting arguments or evidence, and the judge feels as if an undue burden is being placed on em by the lack of arguments and evidence. A CFJ judged as INSUFFICIENT CAN and SHOULD be submitted again with sufficient arguments/evidence. * DISMISS, appropriate if the case is malformed, undecidable, if insufficient information exists to make a judgement with reasonable effort, or if the case is otherwise not able to be answered with another valid judgement. DISMISS is not appropriate if PARADOXICAL is appropriate.
