On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 12:46 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 5/14/23 15:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 3:10 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion > > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> Hm. If we're trying to go the other way and make it as quick as possible, > >> we could have the Arbitor's weekly report include a randomly selected > >> "Dredd" Judge for that week (with some Dredds on the bench if the current > >> Dredd themselves is being accused) that can simultaneously once a crime is > >> noted: post a proper investigation, assign judgement and penalize > >> immediately; with a window for appeals open afterwards that is able to undo > >> whatever penalty was initially applied. > >> > >> It's probably not the best solution, but it would cut it down from 5 weeks > >> to 1 week + 1 to possibly appeal. > > Suggestion that is a minimal modification from current system: Instead > > of the odd "no Investigator's duties exist unless the crime happened" > > method, simply state that the investigator must (in timely fashion) > > make a self-ratifying statement as to whether there was a crime or not > > (and create blots/other punishment if there was a crime). Also, > > further clarify that if the investigator gives eir reasons for the > > findings in good faith (suggested theme: the Investigator has a week > > to Assemble the Suspects in the Drawing Room), it's basically a "best > > guess" and e can't be punished if e's wrong. Then, any doubters > > (including the Referee) can just use CoEs, and the procedure follows > > the regular "create or refer to a CFJ to resolve the matter" process. > > > > -G. > > > Mechanically I think it'd be better to only ratify statements when blots > are created (and even then, ratify that the blots were effectively > created rather than a statement about the underlying crime)? Not sure I > see the point in ratifying that no crime occurred (and that might have > unwanted effects).
Makes sense. Also, since you explained that part of the purpose of your proto was for cases that might go outside the rules-recommended penalty range, maybe using some form of the full Criminal Court would work in place of where "indictments" used to be? (that could be a proposal independent of this particular fix). Whatever the failings of the old criminal courts, it seems better than the "vote on indictments" method for big things.
