I am working on it some, but you should totally go for it. I am not far along and this system sounds good to me. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jun 10, 2017, at 12:35 AM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: > > On Jun 9, 2017, at 9:01 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> Sorry about the extended absence at a bad moment. I’m catching up, but I’m >> about 550 messages behind - bids and estates are a priority. Then I plan to >> issue myself a Card for the offices I’ve neglected before stepping down as >> Referee. Anyone have a suggestion for an apology word list? > > Actually, perhaps stepping down would be premature (though if someone else > wants the job, I won’t object to deputization). Personally, my problem is > somewhere between time management and workload. I think the workload > elements, at least, are addressible in ways that make the game more > interesting. > > We’ve got a lot of projects in flight; would anyone be averse to one more, to > rework rules enforcement along criminal justice lines? This isn’t new. As I > understand it, the rules have modelled “criminal justice” systems before. > Here’s my goals and the spin I want to put on it: > > 1. Replace the requirement for an omniscient, omnibenevolent Referee officer > who can be penalized for ever missing an infraction with a > complaint-investigation process. > > This does two things: it lessens the burden of the Referee job itself by > removing the requirement that the Referee make an effort to catch every last > rule infraction, and it engages everyone else more directly in ensuring that > the rules are followed. > > 2. Expand and clarify the nature of referee-imposed punishments. > > Right now, we have, basically, four kinds of punishment: gentle rebuke, > penalties to voting strength, total loss of voting strength, and ejection > from offices. These date back quite a ways, and we’ve built out a number of > new systems. I’d like to impose at least fines, as well as organization- and > agency-related penalties. (Folding Bankruptcy into the Referee’s job is one > option on that front.) > > 3. Trials and appeals. > > I’m inclined to use the Canadian model for this, and treat most things as > “summary offences.” This means that the factual trial can be a bench trial > performed by the investigator directly (usually the Referee, sometimes the > Arbitor or Prime Minister). However, the accused should be able to appeal the > rules issues through a CFJ, with the imposed punishment held in abeyance > until the CFJ is resolved. I’d probably also want to enhance CFJs to allow > card decisions to be remanded back to the investigator for retrial if it’s > clear on appeal that there are serious defects in the factual analysis. > > Thoughts? I’m happy to do the work of writing it up, and it’d be something I > care enough about to see through. The current Referee’s office, though, I > think might be unworkable. > > -o >
