On Jul 18, 2017, at 10:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> A person whose Vexity is zero may initiate a Call for Judgement by >> announcement. A person whose Vexity is not zero may initiate a Call >> for Judgement with N Agoran Support, where N is the value of that >> person's Vexity switch. > > The fact that there are circumstances in which a person CANNOT initiate > a CFJ on eir own is pretty clearly a violation of R217, IMO. It's a > direct Rules to the Contrary Notwithstanding requirement that a person > be able to do this. > > Initiate to later have dismissed? Fine. Not able to initiate without > another player's intervention? Not fine I would guess. Good catch. It’s interesting to note that, in the West, the very idea of a “vexatious litigant,” and of restricting their access to the courts, came about as a response to one intensely obnoxious Englishman - one Alexander Chaffers, in 1896. His campaign of frivolous litigation against Sir Travers Twiss and his wife Marie was so extensive, and he himself so unwilling to bring it to a close, that Parliament saw fit to pass a law specifically to stop him. Twiss and his wife separated as a result of Chaffers’ harassment, and Sir Twiss himself died penniless in a workhouse, so it didn’t quite work as well as planned. In any case, I understand how severe a step restricting access to CFJs would be, and have no intention of pending any such proposals, but I’ve rather enjoyed the discussion. I think nichdel’s response might be the most effective. On Jul 19, 2017, at 6:45 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > I feel that needing to rally people each time for an increase or something > could be as similarly annoying as the vexity itself. (In vaccum it would > ideal though, its just that in practice it needs to leech on other peoples > time/attention to work, when that leeching is the problem in the first place) Surprisingly, that’s intentional, for two reasons. One: as above, restricting someone’s ability to initiate CFJs is an extreme step. It should not be undertaken lightly, and giving an Officer the ability to do so unilaterally is, I think, worse than any campaign of CFJ abuse. Two: requiring support gives those who feel wronged or frustrated by a campaign of frivolous CFJs justifies an opportunity to spend that frustration. By giving them a hand in the process, I suspected people would feel more like they’d personally had a hand in bringing the offender to a stop, and therefore would be more likely to consider the matter closed. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
