On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 9:59 AM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > I’m intrigued by the idea. I’m a little concerned that it’s TOO vague—are > these rulings CFJ-like (a means of agreeing on what happened platonically, > but with no actual platonic effect) or ratification-like? How is > arbitrariness and capriciousness defined/judged? What about “official area of > concern?”
I was afraid someone would say that. I just thought it might be fun to have major, game altering precedents. Arbitrariness and capriciousness kind of have to be vague (and is in the US legal system too), and it wouldn't make much sense to write out the official areas of concern of each office, though I could (maybe I'll put the current ones in a comment). I was going to leave the platonic/pragmatic thing for CFJs, but it would probably be better to just explicitly define it as platonic. > This seems like a particularly bad place for CFJ hell. When we inevitably end > up with a dispute over whether a memorandum is valid, can that dispute itself > be resolved by memorandum, by either the original officeholder or the Arbitor? Presumably not without being arbitrary or capricious. :) If you're really worried about it, I can add > The idea doesn’t seem immediately bad (although I’m not sure I prefer it > either) but I think such an important area is not suitable for the “write > something simple and let CFJs figure it out” strategy. What's the fun in that? Seriously, if the CFJs don't have a major impact on the future of the game, it's just boring. This way is more fun. -Aris > > On Jan 8, 2020, at 9:09 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 8:24 PM Aris Merchant > > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:12 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > >>> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:00 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion > >>> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >>>> This gets me thinking of a potential big and maybe-interesting-maybe-not > >>>> big change to the order of things... what if officers presumptively had > >>>> the > >>>> ability to rule on their areas of gamestate, in a more active manner than > >>>> our ratification system? Possibly a bit more of a shift towards a > >>>> pragmatic > >>>> philosophy as well. > >>> > >>> We've had a couple conversations along similar lines in the last year > >>> or two and people were generally positive. Specifically two ideas > >>> came up: (1) making each officer the "primary judge" on disputes > >>> about their reports, with some language that judges can only overrule > >>> the officers if their decisions are "arbitrary and capricious" (or > >>> some other legal standard of choice that we can set precedents about - > >>> "arbitrary and capricious" is one used in U.S. government > >>> regulations). (2) dividing the ruleset itself so that rule categories > >>> are more binding, and rules precedence works as "category then power" > >>> (e.g. any rule in the "economy" category has precedence over > >>> "non-economy" category when it comes to coins; then within the economy > >>> category you look at power, and the officer has some extra abilities > >>> within their defining category). > >>> > >>> I think the only barrier is no one sat down and did the deep work of > >>> implementation... > >> > >> A minimalist proto along the lines of #1 follows. This could be a > >> complex interconnected set of 15 rules, but I think it would be more > >> fun to leave it as minimal as possible at let the judiciary sort out > >> the details. > >> > >> -Aris > >> -- > >> Title: Administrative Adjudication > >> Adoption index: 3.0 > >> Author: Aris > >> Co-authors: > >> > >> Enact a new rule, with power power 3.0, entitled "Administrative > >> Adjudication", > >> with the following text: > >> > >> Each officer has the power to, with notice, issue a memorandum, > >> which shall consist in a public document and shall, once issued, > >> have the power to resolve bindingly any matter within eir official area of > >> concern, insofar as that memorandum is neither arbitrary nor capricious. > > > > Come on everyone, comments? > > > > -Aris >
