I'm not at all convinced, at the moment, that diversification of CFJ types is the way to go for some of these types of game controversy.
For equity cases, what about trying Notary-run mediation instead of court cases? The 2008-12 era of equity was through the courts. One thing is that, at the time, the court procedure tended to get in the way of finding mediated compromise solutions. If the Notary leads the procedure with a focus on mediation, it could be a better system. For criminal cases, we'd probably want some kind of "judicial" procedure for crimes, but it might be referee-led? We might also want to make it so equity/criminal cases don't really "set precedent", if there's a matter of law it should be moved over to the Inquiry side. An Appeals court could still be a usful umbrella check on all the adjudication types. Can we phase these ideas a bit (by which I mean, actually adopt and implement each step before doing the next)? I think we should start by the reclassification of infractions/crimes - the language we use there (especially in terms of what kinds of violations are 'ok' to commit) will affect the tone of what comes after. (We're not necessarily "upping" penalties from what exists now as we do this, so the referee can still function as e does now, following reclassification). -G.
