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

[Aris Merchant]

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 {
>
> “Judge Status” is a player switch tracked by the Arbitor in eir monthly
> report, with valid values of “Narrow” (default) and “Wide.” A player may
> flip eir own Judge Status by announcement.
>
>
> When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any player to be
> its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within a week, but CANNOT do so
> if fewer than 2 days have passed since the CFJ was initiated. The players
> eligible to be assigned as judge are players except the initiator and the
> person barred (if any) who fulfill one of these requirements:
>
> 1. Eir Judge Status is set to Narrow, and they have publicly declared
> Interest in the CFJ.
>
> 2. Eir Judge Status is set to Wide, and they have not publicly declared
> Disinterest in the CFJ.
>
> The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all interested players
> have reasonably equal opportunities to judge. If a CFJ has no judge
> assigned, then any player eligible to judge that CFJ CAN assign it to emself
> Without 3 Objections.
>
>
> If there are no eligible judges for a CFJ for a period of 2 weeks, any
> player CAN judge it as DISMISS with 2 days Notice.
>
> }
>
> For all players who have been assigned a CFJ within the past 2 weeks, flip
> their Judge Status to Wide.

I'm preparing my promotor report. Going through this again, I see some
small errors. Specifically, you use "they" when you should use "e". I
wouldn't mind either in isolation, but the combination feels wrong,
and the latter form is preferred.

-Aris

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

[Ørjan Johansen]

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 certificate is saved to 
.alpine-smime/public/ but Alpine has no way to maintain those data 
files and no obvious way to declare one as trusted without being from a 
CA.


This better? Intentionally putting a blank line above my reply here. 
(Replying to the wrong paragraph for demonstration)




Yep. Although ideally you'd put one after as well.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

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 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 curiously often makes Alpine give a loud beep and a 
> complaint that their signature doesn't verify...
> 
> Admittedly, my terminal mail reader Alpine itself has major problems (maybe 
> the version here is just too old? 2.11.) It does not copy quote marks when 
> wrapping quoted lines. It has a _heap_ of options, but no way to enable that 
> which I can see... instead it supports a "flowed text" standard which would 
> provide a similar feature - but it requires the email _sender_ to support it.
> 
> I just tried to see if enabling colors in Alpine would help - supposedly it 
> can color quoted text differently from normal. It seems to work for lines 
> quoted with "> ". But enabling the colors sets them to an absolutely 
> revolting default that then needs to be changed for each of another heap of 
> options, rather than starting with anything similar to the monochrome 
> display, so I gave up.
> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

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

[Gaelan Steele]

> 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 self-signed cert, which probably doesn't help.
> 
> 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 certificate is saved to .alpine-smime/public/ but Alpine has 
> no way to maintain those data files and no obvious way to declare one as 
> trusted without being from a CA.

This better? Intentionally putting a blank line above my reply here. (Replying 
to the wrong paragraph for demonstration)
> 
> Now you replied inline and _that_ looks confusing in my client right after a 
> long wrapped quoted line - took me a while to find where your comment was.
> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>> P.S. this message isn't signed, because I'm sending it from my phone. I 
>> still need to figure out how to get the cert onto my phone
> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

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

[Ørjan Johansen]

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 doesn't verify, so it 
might also be some mismatch with the message I guess (does the data 
include the Subject:?). Your certificate is saved to .alpine-smime/public/ 
but Alpine has no way to maintain those data files and no obvious way to 
declare one as trusted without being from a CA.


Now you replied inline and _that_ looks confusing in my client right after 
a long wrapped quoted line - took me a while to find where your comment 
was.



Gaelan

P.S. this message isn't signed, because I'm sending it from my phone. I 
still need to figure out how to get the cert onto my phone


Greetings,
Ørjan.

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

[Gaelan Steele]

> 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 preferring inline commenting when it's properly 
> formatted.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Admittedly, my terminal mail reader Alpine itself has major problems (maybe 
> the version here is just too old? 2.11.) It does not copy quote marks when 
> wrapping quoted lines. It has a _heap_ of options, but no way to enable that 
> which I can see... instead it supports a "flowed text" standard which would 
> provide a similar feature - but it requires the email _sender_ to support it.
> 
> I just tried to see if enabling colors in Alpine would help - supposedly it 
> can color quoted text differently from normal. It seems to work for lines 
> quoted with "> ". But enabling the colors sets them to an absolutely 
> revolting default that then needs to be changed for each of another heap of 
> options, rather than starting with anything similar to the monochrome 
> display, so I gave up.
> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

Gaelan 

P.S. this message isn't signed, because I'm sending it from my phone. I still 
need to figure out how to get the cert onto my phone

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

[Ørjan Johansen]

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 much better.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

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

[grok (caleb vines)]

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 suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder language
>> on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ has no
>> apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED WITHOUT
>> EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough evidence or
>> argument to adjudicate.
>>
>
> Someone nuke gmail headquarters, please.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.



I did write that message on mobile--happily willing to blame my phone
assuming this email looks correct.

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

[Ørjan Johansen]

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 curiously often makes Alpine give a loud beep and a 
complaint that their signature doesn't verify...


Admittedly, my terminal mail reader Alpine itself has major problems 
(maybe the version here is just too old? 2.11.) It does not copy quote 
marks when wrapping quoted lines. It has a _heap_ of options, but no way 
to enable that which I can see... instead it supports a "flowed text" 
standard which would provide a similar feature - but it requires the email 
_sender_ to support it.


I just tried to see if enabling colors in Alpine would help - supposedly 
it can color quoted text differently from normal. It seems to work for 
lines quoted with "> ". But enabling the colors sets them to an absolutely 
revolting default that then needs to be changed for each of another heap 
of options, rather than starting with anything similar to the monochrome 
display, so I gave up.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

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

[Kerim Aydin]

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, anyway).  Maybe the assigner could become a "fun" office, with
> > expanded powers as well as duties, to make it a plum position (and then
> > picking a judicial assignment method would actually be an election issue
> > in exchange for the powers).
> 
> I like power to come with responsibility, and vice versa.

Boring, eh? - this is still a game you know.  Some of the best negotiations 
and game play have come from offices that have been seen as "perks" without
burdensome responsibilities.  We have one vaguely interesting election now
the P.M., all the others we have to beg someone to take.  It wouldn't hurt
to have another one or two, especially, again, as we're struggling to make
things worth earning.

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

[Gaelan Steele]

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 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 eyes are getting 
> very tired, and I'm on the verge of unsubscribing because of the 
> unreadability.
> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

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

[Ørjan Johansen]

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 eyes are 
getting very tired, and I'm on the verge of unsubscribing because of the 
unreadability.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

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

[Ørjan Johansen]

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 ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ has no
apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED WITHOUT
EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough evidence or
argument to adjudicate.


Someone nuke gmail headquarters, please.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

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

[Aris Merchant]

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 Plan:

1. Bring back assets.
2.* Introduce regulations. [2]
3. Reform the judicial system. Probably by reintroducing
criminal/equity trials. My current thinking is that it would be easier
to have them be same thing, and I can explain more details later if
anyone's interested.
4. Reintroduce contracts.
5. Reintroduce second class persons? Merge orgs, contracts, and
agencies, either partially or fully.
6. Introduce accounts and appropriations. These are such weird edge
cases that no one is likely to care, and hopefully I can push it
through on good faith.
7. ??? Implement Top Secret Project Ω (that's not really what it's
called, just to sound cool). I'm not going to give details, but it has
something to do with a minigame and everything else needs to be done
first.

* 2 is kind of free-floating, but there was some demand for it in
order to help the economy? Realistically it could be moved below 5 or
6 without messing anything up.

I'm currently working on 1, and am probably the only person who
wants/is able to implement 2. Realistically anyone who wants to can do
3-5, but I have some ideas and might like to try 4 myself. If you want
to help, 3 is probably the best place to start. The thread at [1] has
some ideas.  I'm not particularly good at 3, nor do I care much about
it. I just needs to get done in order to move on to 4. I'm likely the
only one who cares about 6 and up.


[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg34240.html
[2] Latest public draft:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg34536.html


-Aris

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> 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
>  wrote:
>>
>> 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

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

[Aris Merchant]

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
> keep, whether informally or formally (I plan to keep up the recordkeeping
> for a bit, anyway).  Maybe the assigner could become a "fun" office, with
> expanded powers as well as duties, to make it a plum position (and then
> picking a judicial assignment method would actually be an election issue
> in exchange for the powers).

I like power to come with responsibility, and vice versa.

> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> How would people feel about reimplementing a formal criminal and civil
>> court system in addition to CFJs?
>
> It's not bad in principle, but this (or suggestions for public defender,
> etc) requires yet more officers.  That would be my only concern, I like
> the idea of official true/false arguments!

My thinking would be an office who's job it would be to help each side
do their research and lay out their arguments. In some cases arguing
for each side doesn't make much sense. On the other hand, supplying
precedents to back people's arguments when applicable is always
helpful.

-Aris

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

[Kerim Aydin]

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, anyway).  Maybe the assigner could become a "fun" office, with
expanded powers as well as duties, to make it a plum position (and then
picking a judicial assignment method would actually be an election issue
in exchange for the powers).

On Tue, 30 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> How would people feel about reimplementing a formal criminal and civil
> court system in addition to CFJs?

It's not bad in principle, but this (or suggestions for public defender,
etc) requires yet more officers.  That would be my only concern, I like
the idea of official true/false arguments!

The main issue in the past with the criminal and civil systems was just
time - by the time you let plaintiff, defendant, judge all respond in a
timely fashion at each step, everyone's kinda sick of the case or half-
forgotten it and moved on.

And - for civil court especially - wait until you've established some 
good steady value for your fungible tradeables, otherwise figuring out
what's "equitable" is nigh-impossible (pretty hard even with that).

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

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, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> 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 
>  wrote:
> 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 at 5:28 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
> >  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 
> > needed for contracts). In the past we've always done this kind of thing as 
> > a type of CFJ (regular would be called inquiry, then you have equity and 
> > criminal). I think you can find some version of that in the ruleset 
> > somewhere around ~2010. I've got to go right now, and don't have time to 
> > check.
> >
> > -Aris
> 

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

[grok (caleb vines)]

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.


Agreed. We should have fees for cases (although Agora can pay if someone
can't), which should go to the Arbitor, Judge, and whatever other judicial
roles we come up with.

-Aris

>
Granular Paydays gives Agora offices a report rate. If the rule for a
public defender (or arbitor, whatever nomenclature is preferred) just state
that the public defender's presentation of arguments on a CFJ is a report,
e'll get paid per diem.

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

[Aris Merchant]

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?
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On May 30, 2017, at 8:36 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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
> needed for contracts). In the past we've always done this kind of thing as
> a type of CFJ (regular would be called inquiry, then you have equity and
> criminal). I think you can find some version of that in the ruleset
> somewhere around ~2010. I've got to go right now, and don't have time to
> check.
> >
> > -Aris
>
>

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

[Aris Merchant]

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 should go to the Arbitor, Judge, and whatever other judicial
roles we come up with.

-Aris

>

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

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 at 5:28 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  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 needed 
> for contracts). In the past we've always done this kind of thing as a type of 
> CFJ (regular would be called inquiry, then you have equity and criminal). I 
> think you can find some version of that in the ruleset somewhere around 
> ~2010. I've got to go right now, and don't have time to check.
> 
> -Aris

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

[Aris Merchant]

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
needed for contracts). In the past we've always done this kind of thing as
a type of CFJ (regular would be called inquiry, then you have equity and
criminal). I think you can find some version of that in the ruleset
somewhere around ~2010. I've got to go right now, and don't have time to
check.

-Aris

>

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

[Aris Merchant]

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
only be required if in a different thread from the proposal (which would
already be marked), and marking votes would only be required if in a
different thread than the distribution/other initiation of the decision.

-Aris

>

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

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:
> 
> 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, Aris Merchant 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:07 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  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 and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds).
>> 
>> We purposefully built a lot of flexibility into the Arbitor's
>> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
>> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
>> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
>> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
>> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
>> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
>> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
>> 
>> NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the system 
>> into ensuring you got a favorable judge.
>> 
>> That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and other 
>> judgements) to make happen.
>> 
>> I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work on 
>> ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's super 
>> important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on em, 
>> not us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G. comes 
>> back and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they want the 
>> post) then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't there - so 
>> let's not do that.
>> 
>> I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN 
>> do, not what the officers SHALL do. 
>> 
>> Personally I believe in: 
>> Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and 
>> 'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently 
>> eating a sandwich`")
>> 
>> Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge) - 
>> but the recusal must come with reasoning.
>> 
>> And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.
>> 
>> A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder language 
>> on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ has no 
>> apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED WITHOUT 
>> EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough evidence or 
>> argument to adjudicate.
>> 
>> Although if there was a dismissal due to lack of evidence, I would think a 
>> public defender role (or office) would probably make CFJs a little more 
>> robust.
>> 
>> 
>> -grok
>> 
>> I like this public defender idea, and would be happy to stand for the role. 
>> Finally an interesting position without exessive paperwork! I also like the 
>> idea of mandatory tags for certain emails. I think we would want tags for 
>> proposals, pends, and votes. I'll have more thoughts on that later.
>> 
>> -Aris
>> 
>> I may have been a little too enthusiastic there. I definitely think it's a 
>> good idea. However, my willingness to stand for the office depends on a 
>> bunch of factors, such as the scope of the responsibilities and how busy I 
>> am and the like.
>> 
>> -Aris
> 

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

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, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:07 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  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 and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds).
> 
> We purposefully built a lot of flexibility into the Arbitor's
> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
> 
> NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the system 
> into ensuring you got a favorable judge.
> 
> That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and other 
> judgements) to make happen.
> 
> I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work on 
> ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's super 
> important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on em, not 
> us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G. comes back 
> and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they want the post) 
> then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't there - so let's 
> not do that.
> 
> I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN do, 
> not what the officers SHALL do. 
> 
> Personally I believe in: 
> Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and 
> 'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently eating 
> a sandwich`")
> 
> Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge) - 
> but the recusal must come with reasoning.
> 
> And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.
> 
> A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder language 
> on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ has no 
> apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED WITHOUT 
> EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough evidence or 
> argument to adjudicate.
> 
> Although if there was a dismissal due to lack of evidence, I would think a 
> public defender role (or office) would probably make CFJs a little more 
> robust.
> 
> 
> -grok
> 
> I like this public defender idea, and would be happy to stand for the role. 
> Finally an interesting position without exessive paperwork! I also like the 
> idea of mandatory tags for certain emails. I think we would want tags for 
> proposals, pends, and votes. I'll have more thoughts on that later.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> I may have been a little too enthusiastic there. I definitely think it's a 
> good idea. However, my willingness to stand for the office depends on a bunch 
> of factors, such as the scope of the responsibilities and how busy I am and 
> the like.
> 
> -Aris

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

[Aris Merchant]

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 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 and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds).
>>>
>>> We purposefully built a lot of flexibility into the Arbitor's
>>> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
>>> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
>>> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
>>> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
>>> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
>>> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
>>> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
>>>
>>
>> NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the
>> system into ensuring you got a favorable judge.
>>
>> That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and
>> other judgements) to make happen.
>>
>> I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work
>> on ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's
>> super important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on
>> em, not us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G.
>> comes back and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they
>> want the post) then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't
>> there - so let's not do that.
>>
>> I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN
>> do, not what the officers SHALL do.
>>
>> Personally I believe in:
>> Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and
>> 'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently
>> eating a sandwich`")
>>
>> Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred
>> judge) - but the recusal must come with reasoning.
>>
>> And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.
>>
>>
>> A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder
>> language on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ
>> has no apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED
>> WITHOUT EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough
>> evidence or argument to adjudicate.
>>
>> Although if there was a dismissal due to lack of evidence, I would think
>> a public defender role (or office) would probably make CFJs a little more
>> robust.
>>
>>
>> -grok
>>
>
> I like this public defender idea, and would be happy to stand for the
> role. Finally an interesting position without exessive paperwork! I also
> like the idea of mandatory tags for certain emails. I think we would want
> tags for proposals, pends, and votes. I'll have more thoughts on that later.
>

> -Aris
>

I may have been a little too enthusiastic there. I definitely think it's a
good idea. However, my willingness to stand for the office depends on a
bunch of factors, such as the scope of the responsibilities and how busy I
am and the like.

-Aris

>

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

[Gaelan Steele]

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 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 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 flexibility into the Arbitor's
>>> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
>>> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
>>> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
>>> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
>>> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
>>> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
>>> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
>> 
>> NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the system 
>> into ensuring you got a favorable judge.
>> 
>> That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and other 
>> judgements) to make happen.
>> 
>> I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work on 
>> ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's super 
>> important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on em, 
>> not us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G. comes 
>> back and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they want the 
>> post) then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't there - so 
>> let's not do that.
>> 
>> I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN 
>> do, not what the officers SHALL do. 
>> 
>> Personally I believe in: 
>> Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and 
>> 'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently 
>> eating a sandwich`")
>> 
>> Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge) - 
>> but the recusal must come with reasoning.
>> 
>> And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.
>> 
>> A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder language 
>> on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ has no 
>> apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED WITHOUT 
>> EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough evidence or 
>> argument to adjudicate.
>> 
>> Although if there was a dismissal due to lack of evidence, I would think a 
>> public defender role (or office) would probably make CFJs a little more 
>> robust.
>> 
>> 
>> -grok
> 
> I like this public defender idea, and would be happy to stand for the role. 
> Finally an interesting position without exessive paperwork! I also like the 
> idea of mandatory tags for certain emails. I think we would want tags for 
> proposals, pends, and votes. I'll have more thoughts on that later.
> 
> -Aris

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

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:
> 
> 
> 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 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 flexibility into the Arbitor's
> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
> 
> NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the system 
> into ensuring you got a favorable judge.
> 
> That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and other 
> judgements) to make happen.
> 
> I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work on 
> ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's super 
> important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on em, not 
> us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G. comes back 
> and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they want the post) 
> then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't there - so let's 
> not do that.
> 
> I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN do, 
> not what the officers SHALL do. 
> 
> Personally I believe in: 
> Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and 
> 'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently eating 
> a sandwich`")
> 
> Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge) - 
> but the recusal must come with reasoning.
> 
> And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.
> 
> A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder language 
> on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ has no 
> apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED WITHOUT 
> EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough evidence or 
> argument to adjudicate.
> 
> Although if there was a dismissal due to lack of evidence, I would think a 
> public defender role (or office) would probably make CFJs a little more 
> robust.
> 
> 
> -grok
> 
> I like this public defender idea, and would be happy to stand for the role. 
> Finally an interesting position without exessive paperwork! I also like the 
> idea of mandatory tags for certain emails. I think we would want tags for 
> proposals, pends, and votes. I'll have more thoughts on that later.
> 
> -Aris

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

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"  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 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 flexibility into the Arbitor's
> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
> 
> NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the system 
> into ensuring you got a favorable judge.
> 
> That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and other 
> judgements) to make happen.
> 
> I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work on 
> ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's super 
> important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on em, not 
> us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G. comes back 
> and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they want the post) 
> then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't there - so let's 
> not do that.
> 
> I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN do, 
> not what the officers SHALL do. 
> 
> Personally I believe in: 
> Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and 
> 'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently eating 
> a sandwich`")
> 
> Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge) - 
> but the recusal must come with reasoning.
> 
> And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.
> 
> A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder language 
> on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ has no 
> apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED WITHOUT 
> EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough evidence or 
> argument to adjudicate.
> 
> Although if there was a dismissal due to lack of evidence, I would think a 
> public defender role (or office) would probably make CFJs a little more 
> robust.
> 
> 
> -grok

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

[grok (caleb vines)]

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 
> 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 and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds).
>>
>> We purposefully built a lot of flexibility into the Arbitor's
>> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
>> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
>> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
>> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
>> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
>> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
>> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
>>
>
> NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the
> system into ensuring you got a favorable judge.
>
> That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and
> other judgements) to make happen.
>
> I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work
> on ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's
> super important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on
> em, not us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G.
> comes back and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they
> want the post) then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't
> there - so let's not do that.
>
> I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN
> do, not what the officers SHALL do.
>
> Personally I believe in:
> Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and
> 'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently
> eating a sandwich`")
>
> Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge)
> - but the recusal must come with reasoning.
>
> And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.
>
>
> A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder
> language on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ
> has no apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED
> WITHOUT EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough
> evidence or argument to adjudicate.
>
> Although if there was a dismissal due to lack of evidence, I would think a
> public defender role (or office) would probably make CFJs a little more
> robust.
>
>
> -grok
>

I like this public defender idea, and would be happy to stand for the role.
Finally an interesting position without exessive paperwork! I also like the
idea of mandatory tags for certain emails. I think we would want tags for
proposals, pends, and votes. I'll have more thoughts on that later.

-Aris

>
Glad someone else likes it. I'm just of the opinion that if the caller is
required to bring evidence, someone must be required to do the due
diligence of checking their work (slash bias). Otherwise there's a really
big burden on judging that would make it tough for lots of players,
especially new players who might find the CFJ database daunting (read: me
two weeks ago).

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

[Aris Merchant]

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 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 flexibility into the Arbitor's
>> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
>> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
>> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
>> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
>> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
>> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
>> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
>>
>
> NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the
> system into ensuring you got a favorable judge.
>
> That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and
> other judgements) to make happen.
>
> I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work
> on ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's
> super important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on
> em, not us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G.
> comes back and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they
> want the post) then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't
> there - so let's not do that.
>
> I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN
> do, not what the officers SHALL do.
>
> Personally I believe in:
> Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and
> 'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently
> eating a sandwich`")
>
> Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge)
> - but the recusal must come with reasoning.
>
> And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.
>
>
> A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder
> language on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ
> has no apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED
> WITHOUT EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough
> evidence or argument to adjudicate.
>
> Although if there was a dismissal due to lack of evidence, I would think a
> public defender role (or office) would probably make CFJs a little more
> robust.
>
>
> -grok
>

I like this public defender idea, and would be happy to stand for the role.
Finally an interesting position without exessive paperwork! I also like the
idea of mandatory tags for certain emails. I think we would want tags for
proposals, pends, and votes. I'll have more thoughts on that later.

-Aris

>

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

[Quazie]

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 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 flexibility into the Arbitor's
>> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
>> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
>> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
>> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
>> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
>> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
>> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
>>
>
> NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the
> system into ensuring you got a favorable judge.
>
> That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and
> other judgements) to make happen.
>
> I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work
> on ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's
> super important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on
> em, not us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G.
> comes back and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they
> want the post) then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't
> there - so let's not do that.
>
> I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN
> do, not what the officers SHALL do.
>
> Personally I believe in:
> Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and
> 'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently
> eating a sandwich`")
>
> Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge)
> - but the recusal must come with reasoning.
>
> And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.
>
>
> A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder
> language on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ
> has no apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED
> WITHOUT EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough
> evidence or argument to adjudicate.
>
> Although if there was a dismissal due to lack of evidence, I would think a
> public defender role (or office) would probably make CFJs a little more
> robust.
>
>
> -grok
>

Thanks grok - I was trying to remember old judgment which included
MALFORMED and another one as well vs the words I used - I agree that the
suggested words aren't ideal, and I'll try to be kinder with my language.

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

[grok (caleb vines)]

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 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 flexibility into the Arbitor's
> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
>

NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the
system into ensuring you got a favorable judge.

That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and
other judgements) to make happen.

I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work
on ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's
super important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on
em, not us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G.
comes back and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they
want the post) then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't
there - so let's not do that.

I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN
do, not what the officers SHALL do.

Personally I believe in:
Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and
'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently
eating a sandwich`")

Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge)
- but the recusal must come with reasoning.

And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.


A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder language
on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ has no
apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED WITHOUT
EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough evidence or
argument to adjudicate.

Although if there was a dismissal due to lack of evidence, I would think a
public defender role (or office) would probably make CFJs a little more
robust.


-grok

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

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:
> 
> 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 and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds).
> 
> We purposefully built a lot of flexibility into the Arbitor's
> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
> 
> NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the system 
> into ensuring you got a favorable judge.
> 
> That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and other 
> judgements) to make happen.
> 
> I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work on 
> ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's super 
> important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on em, not 
> us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G. comes back 
> and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they want the post) 
> then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't there - so let's 
> not do that.
> 
> I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN do, 
> not what the officers SHALL do. 
> 
> Personally I believe in: 
> Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and 
> 'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently eating 
> a sandwich`")
> 
> Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge) - 
> but the recusal must come with reasoning.
> 
> And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.

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

[Quazie]

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 and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds).
>
> We purposefully built a lot of flexibility into the Arbitor's
> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
>

NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the
system into ensuring you got a favorable judge.

That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and
other judgements) to make happen.

I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work
on ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's
super important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on
em, not us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G.
comes back and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they
want the post) then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't
there - so let's not do that.

I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN
do, not what the officers SHALL do.

Personally I believe in:
Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and
'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently
eating a sandwich`")

Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge)
- but the recusal must come with reasoning.

And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.

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

[Kerim Aydin]

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 flexibility into the Arbitor's 
assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).  
omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with 
contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.

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

[Gaelan Steele]

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, then I'm with you 
about not passing this. 

Gaelan 

> On May 30, 2017, at 3:40 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 definitely have judicial compensation/salaries though).
>> 
>> I disagree:
>> 
>> - The lack of granularity encourages not judging at all. 
>> - An uninterested judge often leads to cursory or incorrect judgements -- 
>> see Cuddlebeam's judgement on the Pink Slip case and mine on the Ambiguity 
>> case (sorry!)
>> - If nobody wishes to judge a case, it probably doesn't matter (which is why 
>> I allow for such cases to be dismissed)
> 
> I'm not trying to be snarky here, but would you rather lose a judge or two,
> or lose the current officers if the tracking becomes too burdensome for
> them?  If the proposal passed as written, I'd personally decide not put
> the pre-case formatting work, and ais523 has made it clear that e won't.
> 
> And if you "allow such cases to be dismissed" by the Arbitor, expect a set
> of meta-CFJs on whether those judgements should have been dismissed.  
> Exactly the opposite of what you want.
> 
> To take care of the "cursory" case, that's why I suggest allowing a judge
> to hand it to someone else, or dismiss it fairly quickly.  But it should
> have that first hearing with the judge.
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

[Kerim Aydin]

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 definitely have judicial compensation/salaries though).
> 
> I disagree:
> 
> - The lack of granularity encourages not judging at all. 
> - An uninterested judge often leads to cursory or incorrect judgements -- see 
> Cuddlebeam's judgement on the Pink Slip case and mine on the Ambiguity case 
> (sorry!)
> - If nobody wishes to judge a case, it probably doesn't matter (which is why 
> I allow for such cases to be dismissed)

I'm not trying to be snarky here, but would you rather lose a judge or two,
or lose the current officers if the tracking becomes too burdensome for
them?  If the proposal passed as written, I'd personally decide not put
the pre-case formatting work, and ais523 has made it clear that e won't.

And if you "allow such cases to be dismissed" by the Arbitor, expect a set
of meta-CFJs on whether those judgements should have been dismissed.  
Exactly the opposite of what you want.

To take care of the "cursory" case, that's why I suggest allowing a judge
to hand it to someone else, or dismiss it fairly quickly.  But it should
have that first hearing with the judge.

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

[Gaelan Steele]

> 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 disagree:

- The lack of granularity encourages not judging at all. 
- An uninterested judge often leads to cursory or incorrect judgements -- see 
Cuddlebeam's judgement on the Pink Slip case and mine on the Ambiguity case 
(sorry!)
- If nobody wishes to judge a case, it probably doesn't matter (which is why I 
allow for such cases to be dismissed)

Gaelan 

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

[Kerim Aydin]

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 enough to slow tge pace down 
> without stopping it, and because other people can 'pend' your CFJ it 
> doesn't completely lock out new players.

Again, I'm hesitant to ask the Arbitor to have to decide whether to assign
case numbers based on shiny holdings/success and so forth.  Or have the
Arbitor decide if a CFJ is "trivial" or "no effect", as that invites follow-
up CFJs on whether the Arbitor decided correctly.

My suggestions are:

1.  Take a breath and see if the last 2 weeks is an anomaly before changing
 assignment procedure;

2.  After-the-case fees for judges, which one of the currency-tracking
 officers can track based on easily-found CotC-published judgements;

3.  Allowing the Judge (not the Arbitor) to "quickly" DISMISS trivial
 cases, or cases with poorly-provided or poorly-formatted arguments.
 Differentiate IRRELEVANT and other old categories of "not true/false"
 to support this.

4.  Allow graceful judge-switching (a Judge can hand off the case to someone
 else).

5.  I really like Quazie's [CFJ] in subject line.  In fact, if we truly are
 jumping to the "next level" in terms of activity, maybe one way of scaling
 up is to end our longstanding practice of ignoring subject lines.  I could
 see [CFJ], [Transfer], [Intent] and others all being useful, first with a
 SHOULD, then maybe with a CAN ONLY.

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

[Nicholas Evans]

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
because other people can 'pend' your CFJ it doesn't completely lock out new
players.

On May 30, 2017 16:28, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:

>
>
> 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 (assuming others don't
> > mind skipping over the DIS messages). It's not perfect- -far from it-
> > -but it's better than nothing.
>
> 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).
>
> > Another idea: make CFJs with no effect on the current gamestate a
> > dependent action of some sort.
>
> "CFJ:  this cfj has an effect on the current gamestate."
>
>
>
>

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

[Kerim Aydin]

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 (assuming others don't 
> mind skipping over the DIS messages). It's not perfect- -far from it-
> -but it's better than nothing.

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).

> Another idea: make CFJs with no effect on the current gamestate a 
> dependent action of some sort.

"CFJ:  this cfj has an effect on the current gamestate."

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

[Gaelan Steele]

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 messages). It's not 
perfect--far from it--but it's better than nothing. 

Another idea: make CFJs with no effect on the current gamestate a dependent 
action of some sort. 

Gaelan

> On May 30, 2017, at 1:46 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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, before assignment).
> 
> If this has to be done first, as proposed, case assignments will 
> drastically slow down and make issues worse (based on my experience,
> and on how past clerks did it).
> 
> The current method of "assign on the fly" cuts through that, and the
> formatting time delay happens afterwards, so it doesn't slow down
> actual court business.
> 
> The disadvantage is that the action is harder to spectate (and comment
> on).  But at high volumes, even the old system had this issue - there
> was plenty of discussion quoting pieces of case logs and the pre-
> formatting didn't make spectating any clearer.
> 
> Also, self-assignment actually makes one more thing to track.  If
> we assume the Arbitor can act at the speed ais523 has been in the last
> couple weeks, I think I'd discourage self-assignment.
> 
> Note that *everything* ais523 and I have done in the last couple weeks
> has been "timely" - within a week of calling, judging, etc., the
> cases have been up.  Adding stuff won't speed this up or clear the
> courts any faster.
> 
> I think the best solution is first, to remember that CFJs don't change
> things immediately, and there's time to reflect; it's ok to just not follow
> the arguments and read the cases afterwards (and file Motions at that
> point if something goes wonky).  And second, given that everyone might
> not want to follow along, if this volume is more than a blip, we might
> move to a dedicated court forum.
> 
>> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Martin Rönsch wrote:
>> 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 Arbitor still has to keep track of all open CFJs and who has interest in 
>> them and with this proposal now
>> also who is eligible for which CFJ to judge.
> 

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

[Quazie]

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 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, before assignment).
>
> If this has to be done first, as proposed, case assignments will
> drastically slow down and make issues worse (based on my experience,
> and on how past clerks did it).
>
> The current method of "assign on the fly" cuts through that, and the
> formatting time delay happens afterwards, so it doesn't slow down
> actual court business.
>
> The disadvantage is that the action is harder to spectate (and comment
> on).  But at high volumes, even the old system had this issue - there
> was plenty of discussion quoting pieces of case logs and the pre-
> formatting didn't make spectating any clearer.
>
> Also, self-assignment actually makes one more thing to track.  If
> we assume the Arbitor can act at the speed ais523 has been in the last
> couple weeks, I think I'd discourage self-assignment.
>
> Note that *everything* ais523 and I have done in the last couple weeks
> has been "timely" - within a week of calling, judging, etc., the
> cases have been up.  Adding stuff won't speed this up or clear the
> courts any faster.
>
> I think the best solution is first, to remember that CFJs don't change
> things immediately, and there's time to reflect; it's ok to just not follow
> the arguments and read the cases afterwards (and file Motions at that
> point if something goes wonky).  And second, given that everyone might
> not want to follow along, if this volume is more than a blip, we might
> move to a dedicated court forum.
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Martin Rönsch wrote:
> > 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 Arbitor still has to keep track of all open CFJs and who has
> interest in them and with this proposal now
> > also who is eligible for which CFJ to judge.
>
>

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

[Kerim Aydin]

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, before assignment).

If this has to be done first, as proposed, case assignments will 
drastically slow down and make issues worse (based on my experience,
and on how past clerks did it).

The current method of "assign on the fly" cuts through that, and the
formatting time delay happens afterwards, so it doesn't slow down
actual court business.

The disadvantage is that the action is harder to spectate (and comment
on).  But at high volumes, even the old system had this issue - there
was plenty of discussion quoting pieces of case logs and the pre-
formatting didn't make spectating any clearer.

Also, self-assignment actually makes one more thing to track.  If
we assume the Arbitor can act at the speed ais523 has been in the last
couple weeks, I think I'd discourage self-assignment.

Note that *everything* ais523 and I have done in the last couple weeks
has been "timely" - within a week of calling, judging, etc., the
cases have been up.  Adding stuff won't speed this up or clear the
courts any faster.

I think the best solution is first, to remember that CFJs don't change
things immediately, and there's time to reflect; it's ok to just not follow
the arguments and read the cases afterwards (and file Motions at that
point if something goes wonky).  And second, given that everyone might
not want to follow along, if this volume is more than a blip, we might
move to a dedicated court forum.

On Tue, 30 May 2017, Martin Rönsch wrote:
> 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 Arbitor still has to keep track of all open CFJs and who has interest in 
> them and with this proposal now
> also who is eligible for which CFJ to judge.

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

[Martin Rönsch]

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 Arbitor still has to keep 
track of all open CFJs and who has interest in them and with this 
proposal now also who is eligible for which CFJ to judge.


I think there are only two ways out of this:

1) Reducing the number of CFJs that are called.

2) Restructuring the duties of the Arbitor

I am opposed to reducing the number of CFJs by legislative ways, so here 
is an Idea how to help the Arbitor out: 1. Create a new 
office (Clerc) whose duties are to keep track of open unassigned CFJs 
and the arguments
connected to them. This office then publishes a weekly 
report with all open CFJs.
2. The Arbitor is already only required to assign cases within 
a week so this would give em the chance to assign cases in bunch 
once a week after the clerc published eir report.

3. Encourage eligible judges to selfassign cases
This would hopefully preprocess the open cases for the Arbitor, so that 
e only assign cases nobody already picked up during the week.
I realize this creates another office that needs to be filled, but I 
don't see any other way to relief the Arbitor.


Veggiekeks

Am 30.05.2017 um 08:41 schrieb Gaelan Steele:

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 {

“Judge Status” is a player switch tracked by the Arbitor in
eir monthly report, with valid values of “Narrow” (default)
and “Wide.” A player may flip eir own Judge Status by
announcement.


When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any
player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within
a week, but CANNOT do so if fewer than 2 days have passed
since the CFJ was initiated. The players eligible to be
assigned as judge are players except the initiator and the
person barred (if any) who fulfill one of these requirements:

1. Eir Judge Status is set to Narrow, and they have publicly
declared Interest in the CFJ.

2. Eir Judge Status is set to Wide, and they have not publicly
declared Disinterest in the CFJ.

The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to
judge. If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then any player
eligible to judge that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3
Objections.


If there are no eligible judges for a CFJ for a period of 2
weeks, any player CAN judge it as DISMISS with 2 days Notice.

}

For all players who have been assigned a CFJ within the past 2
weeks, flip their Judge Status to Wide.

>

Gaelan

On May 29, 2017, at 11:39 PM, Gaelan Steele > wrote:


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 values of “Narrow” (default)
and “Wide.” A player may flip eir own Judge Status by
announcement.


When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any
player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so
within a week, but CANNOT do so if fewer than 2 days have
passed since the CFJ was initiated. The players eligible to
be assigned as judge are players except the initiator and
the person barred (if any) who fulfill one of these requirements:
1. Eir Judge Status is set to Narrow, and they have publicly
declared Interest in the CFJ.
2. Eir Judge Status is set to Wide, and they have not
publicly declared Disinterest in the CFJ.
The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to
judge. If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then
any player eligible to judge that CFJ CAN assign it to emself
Without 3 Objections.

If there are no eligible judges for a CFJ for a period of 2
weeks, any player CAN judge it as DISMISS with 2 days Notice.

}

For all players who have been assigned a CFJ within the past 2
weeks, flip their Judge Status to Wide.

>

Gaelan

On May 29, 2017, at 6:25 PM, Quazie > wrote:


On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 6:17 PM Gaelan Steele 

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

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.”
> 
> 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 values of “Narrow” (default) and “Wide.” A player may flip 
> eir own Judge Status by announcement.
> 
> When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any player to be its 
> judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within a week, but CANNOT do so if 
> fewer than 2 days have passed since the CFJ was initiated. The players 
> eligible to be assigned as judge are players except the initiator and the 
> person barred (if any) who fulfill one of these requirements:
> 1. Eir Judge Status is set to Narrow, and they have publicly declared 
> Interest in the CFJ.
> 2. Eir Judge Status is set to Wide, and they have not publicly declared 
> Disinterest in the CFJ.
> The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all interested players 
> have reasonably equal opportunities to judge. If a CFJ has no judge assigned, 
> then any player eligible to judge that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3 
> Objections.
> 
> If there are no eligible judges for a CFJ for a period of 2 weeks, any player 
> CAN judge it as DISMISS with 2 days Notice.
> }
> 
> For all players who have been assigned a CFJ within the past 2 weeks, flip 
> their Judge Status to Wide.
> >
> 
> Gaelan
> 
>> On May 29, 2017, at 11:39 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> 
>> 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 values of “Narrow” (default) and “Wide.” A player may 
>> flip eir own Judge Status by announcement.
>> 
>> When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any player to be 
>> its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within a week, but CANNOT do so 
>> if fewer than 2 days have passed since the CFJ was initiated. The players 
>> eligible to be assigned as judge are players except the initiator and the 
>> person barred (if any) who fulfill one of these requirements:
>> 1. Eir Judge Status is set to Narrow, and they have publicly declared 
>> Interest in the CFJ.
>> 2. Eir Judge Status is set to Wide, and they have not publicly declared 
>> Disinterest in the CFJ.
>> The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all interested players 
>> have reasonably equal opportunities to judge. If a CFJ has no judge 
>> assigned, then any player eligible to judge that CFJ CAN assign it to emself 
>> Without 3 Objections.
>> 
>> If there are no eligible judges for a CFJ for a period of 2 weeks, any 
>> player CAN judge it as DISMISS with 2 days Notice.
>> }
>> 
>> For all players who have been assigned a CFJ within the past 2 weeks, flip 
>> their Judge Status to Wide.
>> >
>> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>>> On May 29, 2017, at 6:25 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 6:17 PM Gaelan Steele  wrote:
 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 that is open to
 debate. The judicial system is a good way to get new players involved.
>>> That’s a departure from the current system (not necessarily bad). However, 
>>> I’m still against it—I feel that judging should be a decision a player 
>>> makes when they feel they understand enough of the ruleset to jump in, and 
>>> faulty judgements from new players help nobody. 
>>> 
>>> None should be the default - A new player shouldn't be hit with judging a 
>>> CFJ immediately - Judicial duties should be opt in.
>> 
> 

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

[Gaelan Steele]

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 values of “Narrow” (default) and “Wide.” A player may flip eir own 
Judge Status by announcement.

When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any player to be its 
judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within a week, but CANNOT do so if fewer 
than 2 days have passed since the CFJ was initiated. The players eligible to be 
assigned as judge are players except the initiator and the person barred (if 
any) who fulfill one of these requirements:
1. Eir Judge Status is set to Narrow, and they have publicly declared Interest 
in the CFJ.
2. Eir Judge Status is set to Wide, and they have not publicly declared 
Disinterest in the CFJ.
The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all interested players have 
reasonably equal opportunities to judge. If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then 
any player eligible to judge that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3 
Objections.

If there are no eligible judges for a CFJ for a period of 2 weeks, any player 
CAN judge it as DISMISS with 2 days Notice.
}

For all players who have been assigned a CFJ within the past 2 weeks, flip 
their Judge Status to Wide.
>

Gaelan

> On May 29, 2017, at 6:25 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 6:17 PM Gaelan Steele  > wrote:
>> 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 that is open to
>> debate. The judicial system is a good way to get new players involved.
> 
> That’s a departure from the current system (not necessarily bad). However, 
> I’m still against it—I feel that judging should be a decision a player makes 
> when they feel they understand enough of the ruleset to jump in, and faulty 
> judgements from new players help nobody. 
> 
> None should be the default - A new player shouldn't be hit with judging a CFJ 
> immediately - Judicial duties should be opt in.



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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

[CuddleBeam]

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 you can."

But the more complex ones would be better suited for a more prepared judge.

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

[Quazie]

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 seems
> unnecessary.
>
> Fair.
>
> I'd also make Wide the default, although that is open to
> debate. The judicial system is a good way to get new players involved.
>
> That’s a departure from the current system (not necessarily bad). However,
> I’m still against it—I feel that judging should be a decision a player
> makes when they feel they understand enough of the ruleset to jump in, and
> faulty judgements from new players help nobody.
>

None should be the default - A new player shouldn't be hit with judging a
CFJ immediately - Judicial duties should be opt in.

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

[Gaelan Steele]

> 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 that is open to
> debate. The judicial system is a good way to get new players involved.
That’s a departure from the current system (not necessarily bad). However, I’m 
still against it—I feel that judging should be a decision a player makes when 
they feel they understand enough of the ruleset to jump in, and faulty 
judgements from new players help nobody. 
> 
> -Aris



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Aris Merchant]

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 eir monthly
> report, with valid values of “None” (default, “Narrow,” and “Wide.” A player
> may flip eir own Judge Status by announcement.

Missing a close parenthesis. Why do we need None? Surely any player
could occasionally want to judge a case, so the distinction seems
unnecessary. I'd also make Wide the default, although that is open to
debate. The judicial system is a good way to get new players involved.

-Aris