Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 30 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G. comes back
> and wants eir post

I think splitting the "assigner" and the "recordkeepor" is a good split to
keep, whether informally or formally (I plan to keep up the recordkeeping
for a bit, anyway).  Maybe the assigner could become a "fun" office, with
expanded powers as well as duties, to make it a plum position (and then
picking a judicial assignment method would actually be an election issue
in exchange for the powers).

On Tue, 30 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> How would people feel about reimplementing a formal criminal and civil
> court system in addition to CFJs?

It's not bad in principle, but this (or suggestions for public defender,
etc) requires yet more officers.  That would be my only concern, I like
the idea of official true/false arguments!

The main issue in the past with the criminal and civil systems was just
time - by the time you let plaintiff, defendant, judge all respond in a
timely fashion at each step, everyone's kinda sick of the case or half-
forgotten it and moved on.

And - for civil court especially - wait until you've established some 
good steady value for your fungible tradeables, otherwise figuring out
what's "equitable" is nigh-impossible (pretty hard even with that).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I didn’t mean that minute, I just meant in general. This is one of my problems 
with email, it is interpreted as quick, but really it is more equivalent to fax 
or memos than phone calls.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 30, 2017, at 8:40 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> I will in a few hours, but I really do have to go right now.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:37 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> Could you share what is involved in your Massive Reform Plan and how you 
> would allow others to help?
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> > On May 30, 2017, at 8:36 PM, Aris Merchant 
> >  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:28 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
> >  wrote:
> > How would people feel about reimplementing a formal criminal and civil 
> > court system in addition to CFJs?
> >
> > Some version of that is already part 3 of my Massive Reform Plan (it's 
> > needed for contracts). In the past we've always done this kind of thing as 
> > a type of CFJ (regular would be called inquiry, then you have equity and 
> > criminal). I think you can find some version of that in the ruleset 
> > somewhere around ~2010. I've got to go right now, and don't have time to 
> > check.
> >
> > -Aris
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[grok (caleb vines)]

On May 30, 2017 7:39 PM, "Aris Merchant" 
wrote:


On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:21 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I like the idea of a public defender, but their salary should be paid by
> the callers.


Agreed. We should have fees for cases (although Agora can pay if someone
can't), which should go to the Arbitor, Judge, and whatever other judicial
roles we come up with.

-Aris

>
Granular Paydays gives Agora offices a report rate. If the rule for a
public defender (or arbitor, whatever nomenclature is preferred) just state
that the public defender's presentation of arguments on a CFJ is a report,
e'll get paid per diem.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Aris Merchant]

I will in a few hours, but I really do have to go right now.

-Aris

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:37 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Could you share what is involved in your Massive Reform Plan and how you
> would allow others to help?
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On May 30, 2017, at 8:36 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:28 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > How would people feel about reimplementing a formal criminal and civil
> court system in addition to CFJs?
> >
> > Some version of that is already part 3 of my Massive Reform Plan (it's
> needed for contracts). In the past we've always done this kind of thing as
> a type of CFJ (regular would be called inquiry, then you have equity and
> criminal). I think you can find some version of that in the ruleset
> somewhere around ~2010. I've got to go right now, and don't have time to
> check.
> >
> > -Aris
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:21 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I like the idea of a public defender, but their salary should be paid by
> the callers.


Agreed. We should have fees for cases (although Agora can pay if someone
can't), which should go to the Arbitor, Judge, and whatever other judicial
roles we come up with.

-Aris

>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Could you share what is involved in your Massive Reform Plan and how you would 
allow others to help?

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 30, 2017, at 8:36 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:28 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> How would people feel about reimplementing a formal criminal and civil court 
> system in addition to CFJs?
> 
> Some version of that is already part 3 of my Massive Reform Plan (it's needed 
> for contracts). In the past we've always done this kind of thing as a type of 
> CFJ (regular would be called inquiry, then you have equity and criminal). I 
> think you can find some version of that in the ruleset somewhere around 
> ~2010. I've got to go right now, and don't have time to check.
> 
> -Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:28 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> How would people feel about reimplementing a formal criminal and civil
> court system in addition to CFJs?


Some version of that is already part 3 of my Massive Reform Plan (it's
needed for contracts). In the past we've always done this kind of thing as
a type of CFJ (regular would be called inquiry, then you have equity and
criminal). I think you can find some version of that in the ruleset
somewhere around ~2010. I've got to go right now, and don't have time to
check.

-Aris

>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:25 PM Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> I think normal threading handles voting fine (and subject changes may
> break threads, making more of a mess). I agree about tagging the others.
>

That's what I was going to discuss later. In brief, marking pends would
only be required if in a different thread from the proposal (which would
already be marked), and marking votes would only be required if in a
different thread than the distribution/other initiation of the decision.

-Aris

>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

How would people feel about reimplementing a formal criminal and civil court 
system in addition to CFJs?

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 30, 2017, at 8:27 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
> Actually what could be interesting is make a system of solicitor and 
> defender, in which the caller pends it, then the solicitor argues for FALSE, 
> defender for TRUE, then the judge decides. 
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
>> On May 30, 2017, at 8:25 PM, Aris Merchant 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:07 PM Aris Merchant 
>>  wrote:
>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM grok (caleb vines)  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie"  wrote:
>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
>> 
>> (final?) followup:  I still disagree with the wide/narrow judging idea
>> (both on the principle and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds).
>> 
>> We purposefully built a lot of flexibility into the Arbitor's
>> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
>> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
>> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
>> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
>> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
>> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
>> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
>> 
>> NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the system 
>> into ensuring you got a favorable judge.
>> 
>> That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and other 
>> judgements) to make happen.
>> 
>> I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work on 
>> ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's super 
>> important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on em, 
>> not us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G. comes 
>> back and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they want the 
>> post) then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't there - so 
>> let's not do that.
>> 
>> I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN 
>> do, not what the officers SHALL do. 
>> 
>> Personally I believe in: 
>> Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and 
>> 'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently 
>> eating a sandwich`")
>> 
>> Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge) - 
>> but the recusal must come with reasoning.
>> 
>> And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.
>> 
>> A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder language 
>> on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ has no 
>> apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED WITHOUT 
>> EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough evidence or 
>> argument to adjudicate.
>> 
>> Although if there was a dismissal due to lack of evidence, I would think a 
>> public defender role (or office) would probably make CFJs a little more 
>> robust.
>> 
>> 
>> -grok
>> 
>> I like this public defender idea, and would be happy to stand for the role. 
>> Finally an interesting position without exessive paperwork! I also like the 
>> idea of mandatory tags for certain emails. I think we would want tags for 
>> proposals, pends, and votes. I'll have more thoughts on that later.
>> 
>> -Aris
>> 
>> I may have been a little too enthusiastic there. I definitely think it's a 
>> good idea. However, my willingness to stand for the office depends on a 
>> bunch of factors, such as the scope of the responsibilities and how busy I 
>> am and the like.
>> 
>> -Aris
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Actually what could be interesting is make a system of solicitor and defender, 
in which the caller pends it, then the solicitor argues for FALSE, defender for 
TRUE, then the judge decides. 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 30, 2017, at 8:25 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:07 PM Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM grok (caleb vines)  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie"  wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
> 
> (final?) followup:  I still disagree with the wide/narrow judging idea
> (both on the principle and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds).
> 
> We purposefully built a lot of flexibility into the Arbitor's
> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
> 
> NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the system 
> into ensuring you got a favorable judge.
> 
> That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and other 
> judgements) to make happen.
> 
> I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work on 
> ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's super 
> important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on em, not 
> us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G. comes back 
> and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they want the post) 
> then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't there - so let's 
> not do that.
> 
> I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN do, 
> not what the officers SHALL do. 
> 
> Personally I believe in: 
> Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and 
> 'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently eating 
> a sandwich`")
> 
> Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge) - 
> but the recusal must come with reasoning.
> 
> And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.
> 
> A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder language 
> on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ has no 
> apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED WITHOUT 
> EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough evidence or 
> argument to adjudicate.
> 
> Although if there was a dismissal due to lack of evidence, I would think a 
> public defender role (or office) would probably make CFJs a little more 
> robust.
> 
> 
> -grok
> 
> I like this public defender idea, and would be happy to stand for the role. 
> Finally an interesting position without exessive paperwork! I also like the 
> idea of mandatory tags for certain emails. I think we would want tags for 
> proposals, pends, and votes. I'll have more thoughts on that later.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> I may have been a little too enthusiastic there. I definitely think it's a 
> good idea. However, my willingness to stand for the office depends on a bunch 
> of factors, such as the scope of the responsibilities and how busy I am and 
> the like.
> 
> -Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:07 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM grok (caleb vines) 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie"  wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> > I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
>>>
>>> (final?) followup:  I still disagree with the wide/narrow judging idea
>>> (both on the principle and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds).
>>>
>>> We purposefully built a lot of flexibility into the Arbitor's
>>> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
>>> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
>>> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
>>> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
>>> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
>>> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
>>> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
>>>
>>
>> NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the
>> system into ensuring you got a favorable judge.
>>
>> That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and
>> other judgements) to make happen.
>>
>> I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work
>> on ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's
>> super important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on
>> em, not us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G.
>> comes back and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they
>> want the post) then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't
>> there - so let's not do that.
>>
>> I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN
>> do, not what the officers SHALL do.
>>
>> Personally I believe in:
>> Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and
>> 'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently
>> eating a sandwich`")
>>
>> Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred
>> judge) - but the recusal must come with reasoning.
>>
>> And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.
>>
>>
>> A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder
>> language on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ
>> has no apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED
>> WITHOUT EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough
>> evidence or argument to adjudicate.
>>
>> Although if there was a dismissal due to lack of evidence, I would think
>> a public defender role (or office) would probably make CFJs a little more
>> robust.
>>
>>
>> -grok
>>
>
> I like this public defender idea, and would be happy to stand for the
> role. Finally an interesting position without exessive paperwork! I also
> like the idea of mandatory tags for certain emails. I think we would want
> tags for proposals, pends, and votes. I'll have more thoughts on that later.
>

> -Aris
>

I may have been a little too enthusiastic there. I definitely think it's a
good idea. However, my willingness to stand for the office depends on a
bunch of factors, such as the scope of the responsibilities and how busy I
am and the like.

-Aris

>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Gaelan Steele]

I think normal threading handles voting fine (and subject changes may break 
threads, making more of a mess). I agree about tagging the others. 

Gaelan

> On May 30, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM grok (caleb vines)  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie"  wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> > I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
>>> 
>>> (final?) followup:  I still disagree with the wide/narrow judging idea
>>> (both on the principle and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds).
>>> 
>>> We purposefully built a lot of flexibility into the Arbitor's
>>> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
>>> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
>>> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
>>> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
>>> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
>>> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
>>> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
>> 
>> NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the system 
>> into ensuring you got a favorable judge.
>> 
>> That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and other 
>> judgements) to make happen.
>> 
>> I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work on 
>> ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's super 
>> important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on em, 
>> not us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G. comes 
>> back and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they want the 
>> post) then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't there - so 
>> let's not do that.
>> 
>> I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN 
>> do, not what the officers SHALL do. 
>> 
>> Personally I believe in: 
>> Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and 
>> 'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently 
>> eating a sandwich`")
>> 
>> Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge) - 
>> but the recusal must come with reasoning.
>> 
>> And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.
>> 
>> A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder language 
>> on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ has no 
>> apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED WITHOUT 
>> EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough evidence or 
>> argument to adjudicate.
>> 
>> Although if there was a dismissal due to lack of evidence, I would think a 
>> public defender role (or office) would probably make CFJs a little more 
>> robust.
>> 
>> 
>> -grok
> 
> I like this public defender idea, and would be happy to stand for the role. 
> Finally an interesting position without exessive paperwork! I also like the 
> idea of mandatory tags for certain emails. I think we would want tags for 
> proposals, pends, and votes. I'll have more thoughts on that later.
> 
> -Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Tags would be very helpful for sorting.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 30, 2017, at 8:07 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM grok (caleb vines)  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie"  wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
> 
> (final?) followup:  I still disagree with the wide/narrow judging idea
> (both on the principle and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds).
> 
> We purposefully built a lot of flexibility into the Arbitor's
> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
> 
> NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the system 
> into ensuring you got a favorable judge.
> 
> That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and other 
> judgements) to make happen.
> 
> I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work on 
> ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's super 
> important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on em, not 
> us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G. comes back 
> and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they want the post) 
> then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't there - so let's 
> not do that.
> 
> I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN do, 
> not what the officers SHALL do. 
> 
> Personally I believe in: 
> Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and 
> 'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently eating 
> a sandwich`")
> 
> Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge) - 
> but the recusal must come with reasoning.
> 
> And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.
> 
> A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder language 
> on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ has no 
> apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED WITHOUT 
> EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough evidence or 
> argument to adjudicate.
> 
> Although if there was a dismissal due to lack of evidence, I would think a 
> public defender role (or office) would probably make CFJs a little more 
> robust.
> 
> 
> -grok
> 
> I like this public defender idea, and would be happy to stand for the role. 
> Finally an interesting position without exessive paperwork! I also like the 
> idea of mandatory tags for certain emails. I think we would want tags for 
> proposals, pends, and votes. I'll have more thoughts on that later.
> 
> -Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I like the idea of a public defender, but their salary should be paid by the 
callers.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 30, 2017, at 7:59 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie"  wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
> 
> (final?) followup:  I still disagree with the wide/narrow judging idea
> (both on the principle and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds).
> 
> We purposefully built a lot of flexibility into the Arbitor's
> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
> 
> NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the system 
> into ensuring you got a favorable judge.
> 
> That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and other 
> judgements) to make happen.
> 
> I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work on 
> ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's super 
> important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on em, not 
> us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G. comes back 
> and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they want the post) 
> then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't there - so let's 
> not do that.
> 
> I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN do, 
> not what the officers SHALL do. 
> 
> Personally I believe in: 
> Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and 
> 'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently eating 
> a sandwich`")
> 
> Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge) - 
> but the recusal must come with reasoning.
> 
> And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.
> 
> A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder language 
> on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ has no 
> apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED WITHOUT 
> EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough evidence or 
> argument to adjudicate.
> 
> Although if there was a dismissal due to lack of evidence, I would think a 
> public defender role (or office) would probably make CFJs a little more 
> robust.
> 
> 
> -grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[grok (caleb vines)]

On May 30, 2017 7:07 PM, "Aris Merchant" 
wrote:


On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM grok (caleb vines) 
wrote:

>
>
> On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie"  wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
>>
>> (final?) followup:  I still disagree with the wide/narrow judging idea
>> (both on the principle and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds).
>>
>> We purposefully built a lot of flexibility into the Arbitor's
>> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
>> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
>> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
>> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
>> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
>> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
>> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
>>
>
> NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the
> system into ensuring you got a favorable judge.
>
> That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and
> other judgements) to make happen.
>
> I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work
> on ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's
> super important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on
> em, not us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G.
> comes back and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they
> want the post) then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't
> there - so let's not do that.
>
> I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN
> do, not what the officers SHALL do.
>
> Personally I believe in:
> Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and
> 'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently
> eating a sandwich`")
>
> Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge)
> - but the recusal must come with reasoning.
>
> And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.
>
>
> A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder
> language on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ
> has no apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED
> WITHOUT EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough
> evidence or argument to adjudicate.
>
> Although if there was a dismissal due to lack of evidence, I would think a
> public defender role (or office) would probably make CFJs a little more
> robust.
>
>
> -grok
>

I like this public defender idea, and would be happy to stand for the role.
Finally an interesting position without exessive paperwork! I also like the
idea of mandatory tags for certain emails. I think we would want tags for
proposals, pends, and votes. I'll have more thoughts on that later.

-Aris

>
Glad someone else likes it. I'm just of the opinion that if the caller is
required to bring evidence, someone must be required to do the due
diligence of checking their work (slash bias). Otherwise there's a really
big burden on judging that would make it tough for lots of players,
especially new players who might find the CFJ database daunting (read: me
two weeks ago).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM grok (caleb vines) 
wrote:

>
>
> On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie"  wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
>>
>> (final?) followup:  I still disagree with the wide/narrow judging idea
>> (both on the principle and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds).
>>
>> We purposefully built a lot of flexibility into the Arbitor's
>> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
>> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
>> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
>> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
>> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
>> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
>> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
>>
>
> NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the
> system into ensuring you got a favorable judge.
>
> That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and
> other judgements) to make happen.
>
> I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work
> on ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's
> super important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on
> em, not us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G.
> comes back and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they
> want the post) then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't
> there - so let's not do that.
>
> I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN
> do, not what the officers SHALL do.
>
> Personally I believe in:
> Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and
> 'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently
> eating a sandwich`")
>
> Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge)
> - but the recusal must come with reasoning.
>
> And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.
>
>
> A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder
> language on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ
> has no apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED
> WITHOUT EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough
> evidence or argument to adjudicate.
>
> Although if there was a dismissal due to lack of evidence, I would think a
> public defender role (or office) would probably make CFJs a little more
> robust.
>
>
> -grok
>

I like this public defender idea, and would be happy to stand for the role.
Finally an interesting position without exessive paperwork! I also like the
idea of mandatory tags for certain emails. I think we would want tags for
proposals, pends, and votes. I'll have more thoughts on that later.

-Aris

>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Quazie]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM grok (caleb vines) 
wrote:

>
>
> On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie"  wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
>>
>> (final?) followup:  I still disagree with the wide/narrow judging idea
>> (both on the principle and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds).
>>
>> We purposefully built a lot of flexibility into the Arbitor's
>> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
>> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
>> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
>> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
>> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
>> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
>> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
>>
>
> NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the
> system into ensuring you got a favorable judge.
>
> That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and
> other judgements) to make happen.
>
> I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work
> on ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's
> super important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on
> em, not us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G.
> comes back and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they
> want the post) then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't
> there - so let's not do that.
>
> I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN
> do, not what the officers SHALL do.
>
> Personally I believe in:
> Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and
> 'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently
> eating a sandwich`")
>
> Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge)
> - but the recusal must come with reasoning.
>
> And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.
>
>
> A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder
> language on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ
> has no apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED
> WITHOUT EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough
> evidence or argument to adjudicate.
>
> Although if there was a dismissal due to lack of evidence, I would think a
> public defender role (or office) would probably make CFJs a little more
> robust.
>
>
> -grok
>

Thanks grok - I was trying to remember old judgment which included
MALFORMED and another one as well vs the words I used - I agree that the
suggested words aren't ideal, and I'll try to be kinder with my language.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[grok (caleb vines)]

On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie"  wrote:

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
>
> (final?) followup:  I still disagree with the wide/narrow judging idea
> (both on the principle and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds).
>
> We purposefully built a lot of flexibility into the Arbitor's
> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
>

NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the
system into ensuring you got a favorable judge.

That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and
other judgements) to make happen.

I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work
on ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's
super important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on
em, not us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G.
comes back and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they
want the post) then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't
there - so let's not do that.

I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN
do, not what the officers SHALL do.

Personally I believe in:
Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and
'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently
eating a sandwich`")

Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge)
- but the recusal must come with reasoning.

And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.


A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder language
on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ has no
apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED WITHOUT
EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough evidence or
argument to adjudicate.

Although if there was a dismissal due to lack of evidence, I would think a
public defender role (or office) would probably make CFJs a little more
robust.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I think in general, we should try and lessen the need for officers and increase 
the number of non-tracked concepts and/or self-tracking concepts.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 30, 2017, at 7:25 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
> 
> (final?) followup:  I still disagree with the wide/narrow judging idea
> (both on the principle and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds).
> 
> We purposefully built a lot of flexibility into the Arbitor's
> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
> 
> NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the system 
> into ensuring you got a favorable judge.
> 
> That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and other 
> judgements) to make happen.
> 
> I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work on 
> ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's super 
> important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on em, not 
> us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G. comes back 
> and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they want the post) 
> then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't there - so let's 
> not do that.
> 
> I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN do, 
> not what the officers SHALL do. 
> 
> Personally I believe in: 
> Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and 
> 'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently eating 
> a sandwich`")
> 
> Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge) - 
> but the recusal must come with reasoning.
> 
> And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Quazie]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
>
> (final?) followup:  I still disagree with the wide/narrow judging idea
> (both on the principle and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds).
>
> We purposefully built a lot of flexibility into the Arbitor's
> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
>

NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the
system into ensuring you got a favorable judge.

That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and
other judgements) to make happen.

I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work
on ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's
super important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on
em, not us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G.
comes back and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they
want the post) then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't
there - so let's not do that.

I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN
do, not what the officers SHALL do.

Personally I believe in:
Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and
'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently
eating a sandwich`")

Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge)
- but the recusal must come with reasoning.

And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: 
> I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.

(final?) followup:  I still disagree with the wide/narrow judging idea
(both on the principle and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds).

We purposefully built a lot of flexibility into the Arbitor's 
assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).  
omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with 
contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Gaelan Steele]

I don't see why the pre-case formatting work is needed. The only difference is 
that ais would need to wait 2 days before assigning the ID/judge (and take into 
account any BUS replies to the CFJ). At the end of the day, however, if this 
will cause some additional work on behalf of the officers, then I'm with you 
about not passing this. 

Gaelan 

> On May 30, 2017, at 3:40 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>> On May 30, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>> 
>>> It wasn't clear.  But being stuck with a CFJ you don't want is part of the 
>>> job and random draw of being a judge, helping to clear the load.  (we 
>>> should definitely have judicial compensation/salaries though).
>> 
>> I disagree:
>> 
>> - The lack of granularity encourages not judging at all. 
>> - An uninterested judge often leads to cursory or incorrect judgements -- 
>> see Cuddlebeam's judgement on the Pink Slip case and mine on the Ambiguity 
>> case (sorry!)
>> - If nobody wishes to judge a case, it probably doesn't matter (which is why 
>> I allow for such cases to be dismissed)
> 
> I'm not trying to be snarky here, but would you rather lose a judge or two,
> or lose the current officers if the tracking becomes too burdensome for
> them?  If the proposal passed as written, I'd personally decide not put
> the pre-case formatting work, and ais523 has made it clear that e won't.
> 
> And if you "allow such cases to be dismissed" by the Arbitor, expect a set
> of meta-CFJs on whether those judgements should have been dismissed.  
> Exactly the opposite of what you want.
> 
> To take care of the "cursory" case, that's why I suggest allowing a judge
> to hand it to someone else, or dismiss it fairly quickly.  But it should
> have that first hearing with the judge.
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 30 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > On May 30, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > 
> > It wasn't clear.  But being stuck with a CFJ you don't want is part of the 
> > job and random draw of being a judge, helping to clear the load.  (we 
> > should definitely have judicial compensation/salaries though).
> 
> I disagree:
> 
> - The lack of granularity encourages not judging at all. 
> - An uninterested judge often leads to cursory or incorrect judgements -- see 
> Cuddlebeam's judgement on the Pink Slip case and mine on the Ambiguity case 
> (sorry!)
> - If nobody wishes to judge a case, it probably doesn't matter (which is why 
> I allow for such cases to be dismissed)

I'm not trying to be snarky here, but would you rather lose a judge or two,
or lose the current officers if the tracking becomes too burdensome for
them?  If the proposal passed as written, I'd personally decide not put
the pre-case formatting work, and ais523 has made it clear that e won't.

And if you "allow such cases to be dismissed" by the Arbitor, expect a set
of meta-CFJs on whether those judgements should have been dismissed.  
Exactly the opposite of what you want.

To take care of the "cursory" case, that's why I suggest allowing a judge
to hand it to someone else, or dismiss it fairly quickly.  But it should
have that first hearing with the judge.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Gaelan Steele]

> On May 30, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> It wasn't clear.  But being stuck with a CFJ you don't want is part of the 
> job and random draw of being a judge, helping to clear the load.  (we 
> should definitely have judicial compensation/salaries though).

I disagree:

- The lack of granularity encourages not judging at all. 
- An uninterested judge often leads to cursory or incorrect judgements -- see 
Cuddlebeam's judgement on the Pink Slip case and mine on the Ambiguity case 
(sorry!)
- If nobody wishes to judge a case, it probably doesn't matter (which is why I 
allow for such cases to be dismissed)

Gaelan 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 30 May 2017, Nicholas Evans wrote:
> What about an analogous pending system for CFJs? Anyone can submit but 
> they only get assigned to a judge after someone has paid the fee. The 
> fee should be low and stable. The judge gets paid the fee upon 
> judgment. Even 2 shinies is probably enough to slow tge pace down 
> without stopping it, and because other people can 'pend' your CFJ it 
> doesn't completely lock out new players.

Again, I'm hesitant to ask the Arbitor to have to decide whether to assign
case numbers based on shiny holdings/success and so forth.  Or have the
Arbitor decide if a CFJ is "trivial" or "no effect", as that invites follow-
up CFJs on whether the Arbitor decided correctly.

My suggestions are:

1.  Take a breath and see if the last 2 weeks is an anomaly before changing
 assignment procedure;

2.  After-the-case fees for judges, which one of the currency-tracking
 officers can track based on easily-found CotC-published judgements;

3.  Allowing the Judge (not the Arbitor) to "quickly" DISMISS trivial
 cases, or cases with poorly-provided or poorly-formatted arguments.
 Differentiate IRRELEVANT and other old categories of "not true/false"
 to support this.

4.  Allow graceful judge-switching (a Judge can hand off the case to someone
 else).

5.  I really like Quazie's [CFJ] in subject line.  In fact, if we truly are
 jumping to the "next level" in terms of activity, maybe one way of scaling
 up is to end our longstanding practice of ignoring subject lines.  I could
 see [CFJ], [Transfer], [Intent] and others all being useful, first with a
 SHOULD, then maybe with a CAN ONLY.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Nicholas Evans]

What about an analogous pending system for CFJs? Anyone can submit but they
only get assigned to a judge after someone has paid the fee. The fee should
be low and stable. The judge gets paid the fee upon judgment. Even 2
shinies is probably enough to slow tge pace down without stopping it, and
because other people can 'pend' your CFJ it doesn't completely lock out new
players.

On May 30, 2017 16:28, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > I don't know if this was clear, but the intent of the proposal was
> > to avoid people getting "stuck" with CFJs they don't wish to judge.
> > Under this proposal, the only people bothered by a frivolous CFJ
> > are ais523 and anyone interested in judging (assuming others don't
> > mind skipping over the DIS messages). It's not perfect- -far from it-
> > -but it's better than nothing.
>
> It wasn't clear.  But being stuck with a CFJ you don't want is part of the
> job and random draw of being a judge, helping to clear the load.  (we
> should definitely have judicial compensation/salaries though).
>
> > Another idea: make CFJs with no effect on the current gamestate a
> > dependent action of some sort.
>
> "CFJ:  this cfj has an effect on the current gamestate."
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 30 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I don't know if this was clear, but the intent of the proposal was 
> to avoid people getting "stuck" with CFJs they don't wish to judge. 
> Under this proposal, the only people bothered by a frivolous CFJ 
> are ais523 and anyone interested in judging (assuming others don't 
> mind skipping over the DIS messages). It's not perfect- -far from it-
> -but it's better than nothing.

It wasn't clear.  But being stuck with a CFJ you don't want is part of the 
job and random draw of being a judge, helping to clear the load.  (we 
should definitely have judicial compensation/salaries though).

> Another idea: make CFJs with no effect on the current gamestate a 
> dependent action of some sort.

"CFJ:  this cfj has an effect on the current gamestate."

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Gaelan Steele]

I don't know if this was clear, but the intent of the proposal was to avoid 
people getting "stuck" with CFJs they don't wish to judge. Under this proposal, 
the only people bothered by a frivolous CFJ are ais523 and anyone interested in 
judging (assuming others don't mind skipping over the DIS messages). It's not 
perfect--far from it--but it's better than nothing. 

Another idea: make CFJs with no effect on the current gamestate a dependent 
action of some sort. 

Gaelan

> On May 30, 2017, at 1:46 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Since I mentioned it in a recent message, thought I'd offer some
> specific comments.
> 
> When I had the whole Arbitor job (assign and report), the largest
> obstacle was formatting the cases at the beginning (collecting them
> into a big case log and formatting the random conversations into
> arguments, before assignment).
> 
> If this has to be done first, as proposed, case assignments will 
> drastically slow down and make issues worse (based on my experience,
> and on how past clerks did it).
> 
> The current method of "assign on the fly" cuts through that, and the
> formatting time delay happens afterwards, so it doesn't slow down
> actual court business.
> 
> The disadvantage is that the action is harder to spectate (and comment
> on).  But at high volumes, even the old system had this issue - there
> was plenty of discussion quoting pieces of case logs and the pre-
> formatting didn't make spectating any clearer.
> 
> Also, self-assignment actually makes one more thing to track.  If
> we assume the Arbitor can act at the speed ais523 has been in the last
> couple weeks, I think I'd discourage self-assignment.
> 
> Note that *everything* ais523 and I have done in the last couple weeks
> has been "timely" - within a week of calling, judging, etc., the
> cases have been up.  Adding stuff won't speed this up or clear the
> courts any faster.
> 
> I think the best solution is first, to remember that CFJs don't change
> things immediately, and there's time to reflect; it's ok to just not follow
> the arguments and read the cases afterwards (and file Motions at that
> point if something goes wonky).  And second, given that everyone might
> not want to follow along, if this volume is more than a blip, we might
> move to a dedicated court forum.
> 
>> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Martin Rönsch wrote:
>> I like this proposal. It fixes the problem of growing caseloads for judges 
>> while still ensuring that important
>> CFJs (those that multiple people have an interest in) get judged.
>> 
>> However this proposal does not address the problem of growing caseload for 
>> Arbitor and recordkeeping of CFJs.
>> The Arbitor still has to keep track of all open CFJs and who has interest in 
>> them and with this proposal now
>> also who is eligible for which CFJ to judge.
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Quazie]

I might be in favor of a change such as`CFJs SHOULD be initiated in a newly
named thread, beginning with [CFJ]` so fewer CFJs get `lost`

That might make things easier to get a small handle on?

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 1:48 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Since I mentioned it in a recent message, thought I'd offer some
> specific comments.
>
> When I had the whole Arbitor job (assign and report), the largest
> obstacle was formatting the cases at the beginning (collecting them
> into a big case log and formatting the random conversations into
> arguments, before assignment).
>
> If this has to be done first, as proposed, case assignments will
> drastically slow down and make issues worse (based on my experience,
> and on how past clerks did it).
>
> The current method of "assign on the fly" cuts through that, and the
> formatting time delay happens afterwards, so it doesn't slow down
> actual court business.
>
> The disadvantage is that the action is harder to spectate (and comment
> on).  But at high volumes, even the old system had this issue - there
> was plenty of discussion quoting pieces of case logs and the pre-
> formatting didn't make spectating any clearer.
>
> Also, self-assignment actually makes one more thing to track.  If
> we assume the Arbitor can act at the speed ais523 has been in the last
> couple weeks, I think I'd discourage self-assignment.
>
> Note that *everything* ais523 and I have done in the last couple weeks
> has been "timely" - within a week of calling, judging, etc., the
> cases have been up.  Adding stuff won't speed this up or clear the
> courts any faster.
>
> I think the best solution is first, to remember that CFJs don't change
> things immediately, and there's time to reflect; it's ok to just not follow
> the arguments and read the cases afterwards (and file Motions at that
> point if something goes wonky).  And second, given that everyone might
> not want to follow along, if this volume is more than a blip, we might
> move to a dedicated court forum.
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Martin Rönsch wrote:
> > I like this proposal. It fixes the problem of growing caseloads for
> judges while still ensuring that important
> > CFJs (those that multiple people have an interest in) get judged.
> >
> > However this proposal does not address the problem of growing caseload
> for Arbitor and recordkeeping of CFJs.
> > The Arbitor still has to keep track of all open CFJs and who has
> interest in them and with this proposal now
> > also who is eligible for which CFJ to judge.
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Kerim Aydin]

Since I mentioned it in a recent message, thought I'd offer some
specific comments.

When I had the whole Arbitor job (assign and report), the largest
obstacle was formatting the cases at the beginning (collecting them
into a big case log and formatting the random conversations into
arguments, before assignment).

If this has to be done first, as proposed, case assignments will 
drastically slow down and make issues worse (based on my experience,
and on how past clerks did it).

The current method of "assign on the fly" cuts through that, and the
formatting time delay happens afterwards, so it doesn't slow down
actual court business.

The disadvantage is that the action is harder to spectate (and comment
on).  But at high volumes, even the old system had this issue - there
was plenty of discussion quoting pieces of case logs and the pre-
formatting didn't make spectating any clearer.

Also, self-assignment actually makes one more thing to track.  If
we assume the Arbitor can act at the speed ais523 has been in the last
couple weeks, I think I'd discourage self-assignment.

Note that *everything* ais523 and I have done in the last couple weeks
has been "timely" - within a week of calling, judging, etc., the
cases have been up.  Adding stuff won't speed this up or clear the
courts any faster.

I think the best solution is first, to remember that CFJs don't change
things immediately, and there's time to reflect; it's ok to just not follow
the arguments and read the cases afterwards (and file Motions at that
point if something goes wonky).  And second, given that everyone might
not want to follow along, if this volume is more than a blip, we might
move to a dedicated court forum.

On Tue, 30 May 2017, Martin Rönsch wrote:
> I like this proposal. It fixes the problem of growing caseloads for judges 
> while still ensuring that important
> CFJs (those that multiple people have an interest in) get judged.
> 
> However this proposal does not address the problem of growing caseload for 
> Arbitor and recordkeeping of CFJs.
> The Arbitor still has to keep track of all open CFJs and who has interest in 
> them and with this proposal now
> also who is eligible for which CFJ to judge.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal Competition: Treat Agora Right Good Forever

[Quazie]

I think we've found a couple of holes in the current ruleset that need
patching (I personally have a list of 6 proposals that should go in)

I think we've found a couple of places we have some issues:
1 - Maybe we are overworking our officers.
2 - We have many registered players that have made no actions, including
not voting
3 - There isn't much of an economy, and what's there isn't interesting.

All of those things feel like variants on a mess.  To treat Agora Right
Good Forever we should fix those things - and it behooves each of us to
come up with something interesting to put into the proposal competition to
make things better.

I may go so far as to include a proposal that says:

 'If a player doesn't vote on at least one proposal during this proposal
competition, then clean them up in the following way:
1 - Pay all of their shinies to eir Heir
2 - If a Heir doesn't exist pay all eir shinies to agora.
3 - If they are the head of any agency, dissolve that agency
4 - Flip all eir budget switches to 0"

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 1:08 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Erm, funny phrasing given a lack of something is the opposite of a mess :).
>
> But if that's the understanding, no worries!
>
> I'm concerned at jumping to reforms; for example, the judicial reform
> proposal
> IMO seems to be the opposite of reform, by imposing a bunch of structure
> that won't actually help and will make things harder for the workers
> (haven't
> followed all the drafts tho).
>
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > I feel like 'No game play' is a valid mess to be cleaned up.
> >
> > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:56 PM Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >   Um, can you specify what "messes" you see that are actually
> needing clean up by
> >   rules changes, rather than just being a bit of high-traffic and
> new player
> >   assimilation?
> >
> >   This is apropos of recent comments that "clean up drives" in the
> past have
> >   led to less game play (after doing a couple, I think I'm swearing
> off them).
> >   "more game play" comes from imposing a new and engrossing
> activity.  Idle
> >   minds make more CFJs.
> >
> >   On Tue, 30 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> >   > I hereby issue intent to initiate a Proposal Competition, with
> Agoran Consent, with the specified​
> >   > Objective o​​
> >   > f Treating Agora Right Good Forever by cleaning up the messes we
> have collectively created.
> >   >
> >   >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal Competition: Treat Agora Right Good Forever

[Kerim Aydin]

Erm, funny phrasing given a lack of something is the opposite of a mess :).

But if that's the understanding, no worries!

I'm concerned at jumping to reforms; for example, the judicial reform proposal
IMO seems to be the opposite of reform, by imposing a bunch of structure
that won't actually help and will make things harder for the workers (haven't 
followed all the drafts tho).


On Tue, 30 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> I feel like 'No game play' is a valid mess to be cleaned up.
> 
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:56 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>   Um, can you specify what "messes" you see that are actually needing 
> clean up by
>   rules changes, rather than just being a bit of high-traffic and new 
> player
>   assimilation?
> 
>   This is apropos of recent comments that "clean up drives" in the past 
> have
>   led to less game play (after doing a couple, I think I'm swearing off 
> them).
>   "more game play" comes from imposing a new and engrossing activity.  
> Idle
>   minds make more CFJs.
> 
>   On Tue, 30 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
>   > I hereby issue intent to initiate a Proposal Competition, with Agoran 
> Consent, with the specified​ 
>   > Objective o​​
>   > f Treating Agora Right Good Forever by cleaning up the messes we have 
> collectively created.
>   >
>   >
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal Competition: Treat Agora Right Good Forever

[Quazie]

I feel like 'No game play' is a valid mess to be cleaned up.

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:56 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Um, can you specify what "messes" you see that are actually needing clean
> up by
> rules changes, rather than just being a bit of high-traffic and new player
> assimilation?
>
> This is apropos of recent comments that "clean up drives" in the past have
> led to less game play (after doing a couple, I think I'm swearing off
> them).
> "more game play" comes from imposing a new and engrossing activity.  Idle
> minds make more CFJs.
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > I hereby issue intent to initiate a Proposal Competition, with Agoran
> Consent, with the specified​
> > Objective o​​
> > f Treating Agora Right Good Forever by cleaning up the messes we have
> collectively created.
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal Competition: Treat Agora Right Good Forever

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I think expanding the economy with a stock market is the best course of action 
right now.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 30, 2017, at 3:54 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, can you specify what "messes" you see that are actually needing clean up 
> by 
> rules changes, rather than just being a bit of high-traffic and new player
> assimilation?
> 
> This is apropos of recent comments that "clean up drives" in the past have
> led to less game play (after doing a couple, I think I'm swearing off them).
> "more game play" comes from imposing a new and engrossing activity.  Idle
> minds make more CFJs.
> 
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
>> I hereby issue intent to initiate a Proposal Competition, with Agoran 
>> Consent, with the specified​ 
>> Objective o​​
>> f Treating Agora Right Good Forever by cleaning up the messes we have 
>> collectively created.
>> 
>> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal Competition: Academia

[Quazie]

I agree we need something to do, but maybe we need a base proposal that we
all agree on before we have a competition towards making that thing better.

It seems valid to 'clean up the mess' by giving us something to do (So I
don't feel like my new proposal competition suggestion blocks an academic
draw, it simply also focuses our energies on fixing all the little or big
broken parts of the rules that need to be cleaned up)

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:52 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> One comment:  there's a lot of energy in Agencies right now.  Agencies are
> useful to let people do things on behalf of other people.
>
> But that's all pretty meaningless if there's nothing for people to actually
> *do*.
>
> Get *something* in there (other than proposals) that's worth spending money
> on.  Maybe territory, maybe academia, maybe winning points - but I think
> just "fixing" isn't quite on, because there's not much underlying gameplay
> to actually *fix*.  By "underlying gameplay" I mean something grindy (to
> a certain degree), something where players make a few, basic moves
> regularly
> to build up to an interesting game position.
>
> Also, now that we've given each other feedback on CFJs, it might be nice
> to see if this CFJ storm is mostly over and was just passing through,
> before
> jumping to create more complicated systems that assume 20 CFJs/week is the
> new normal...
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > I Object - I think a proposal competition around making things less
> messy might be more important at
> > the moment vs adding a bunch of new academic stuff (I like the general
> idea, but it might not be the
> > perfect time)
> >
> > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 4:19 AM CuddleBeam 
> wrote:
> >
> > I SUPPORT this.
> >
> > ...If it's alright that there has been a typo there and the following
> got split:
> >
> > "Objective of improving and encouraging scholarship of Agora and/or
> theming Agora around scholarship and academia."
> >
> >
> >
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal Competition: Treat Agora Right Good Forever

[Kerim Aydin]

Um, can you specify what "messes" you see that are actually needing clean up by 
rules changes, rather than just being a bit of high-traffic and new player
assimilation?

This is apropos of recent comments that "clean up drives" in the past have
led to less game play (after doing a couple, I think I'm swearing off them).
"more game play" comes from imposing a new and engrossing activity.  Idle
minds make more CFJs.

On Tue, 30 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> I hereby issue intent to initiate a Proposal Competition, with Agoran 
> Consent, with the specified​ 
> Objective o​​
> f Treating Agora Right Good Forever by cleaning up the messes we have 
> collectively created.
> 
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal Competition: Academia

[Kerim Aydin]

One comment:  there's a lot of energy in Agencies right now.  Agencies are
useful to let people do things on behalf of other people.

But that's all pretty meaningless if there's nothing for people to actually 
*do*.

Get *something* in there (other than proposals) that's worth spending money
on.  Maybe territory, maybe academia, maybe winning points - but I think
just "fixing" isn't quite on, because there's not much underlying gameplay
to actually *fix*.  By "underlying gameplay" I mean something grindy (to
a certain degree), something where players make a few, basic moves regularly
to build up to an interesting game position.

Also, now that we've given each other feedback on CFJs, it might be nice
to see if this CFJ storm is mostly over and was just passing through, before
jumping to create more complicated systems that assume 20 CFJs/week is the 
new normal...

On Tue, 30 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> I Object - I think a proposal competition around making things less messy 
> might be more important at 
> the moment vs adding a bunch of new academic stuff (I like the general idea, 
> but it might not be the 
> perfect time)
> 
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 4:19 AM CuddleBeam  wrote:
> 
> I SUPPORT this.
> 
> ...If it's alright that there has been a typo there and the following got 
> split:
> 
> "Objective of improving and encouraging scholarship of Agora and/or theming 
> Agora around scholarship and academia."
> 
> 
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal Competition: Treat Agora Right Good Forever

[Quazie]

This is purposefully vague, so that we can all work towards cleaning things
up in all the ways we need to clean.

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:49 PM Quazie  wrote:

> I hereby issue intent to initiate a Proposal Competition, with Agoran
> Consent, with the specified
> ​
> Objective o
> ​​
> f Treating Agora Right Good Forever by cleaning up the messes we have
> collectively created.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] State of the Union

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

That is the change I have made.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Quazie  wrote:

> Suggestion:
>
> For the agency the responsible person is the head. For an organization the
> responsible person is either defined by the organization, or the player
> with the highest budget switch if not defined.
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 03:15 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I like this revision because it seems to have closed the loopholes of the
>> last one. However, one issue I see is if the member of the Organization
>> leaves, it is unclear what occurs. For your ease, I have compiled my
>> suggested revisions below:
>>
>> Create the power-1.5 rule “Internal State” with this text: {
>> An Agency or Organization’s Internal State is state that is defined by
>> the Agency or Organization’s text (Power or Charter), but not by any rules.
>> An Agency or Organization has a Responsible Player for each part of its
>> Internal State; the Responsible Player SHALL publish a weekly report
>> describing that part of the state. If an organization or agency’s text
>> states that it wishes to use self-ratifying reports, then portions of the
>> report that describe this state are self-ratifying.
>> The responsible player for all of an Agency’s state is that agency’s
>> Head. An Organization’s Charter must define a member of the organization as
>> the Responsible Player for each portion of its state; any player can
>> destroy an organization which does not do so with 1 week Notice.
>> If the member leaves the organization, any member may publish the report
>> and the player with the highest budget switch SHALL do so in a timely
>> manner.
>> }
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 30, 2017, at 2:47 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> >
>> > OK, this is plain embarrassing.
>> >
>> > I retract “State of the Union."
>> >
>> > I create this AI-1.5 proposal “State of the Union v2” by Gaelan, PSS
>> and Aris: <
>> > Create the power-1.5 rule “Internal State” with this text: {
>> > An Agency or Organization’s Internal State is state that is defined by
>> the Agency or Organization’s text (Power or Charter), but not by any rules.
>> An Agency or Organization has a Responsible Player for each part of its
>> Internal State; the Responsible Player SHALL publish a weekly report
>> describing that state. If an organization or agency’s text states that it
>> wishes to use self-ratifying reports, then portions of the report that
>> describe this state are self-ratifying.
>> > The responsible player for all of an Agency’s state is that agency’s
>> Head. An Organization’s Charter must define a member of the organization as
>> the Responsible Player for each portion of its state; any player can
>> destroy an organization which does not do so with 1 week Notice.
>> > }
>> > >
>> >
>> > Gaelan
>> >
>> >> On May 29, 2017, at 11:46 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I retract “State of the Union."
>> >>
>> >> I create this AI-1.5 proposal “State of the Union v2” by Gaelan, PSS
>> and Aris: <
>> >> Create the power-1.5 rule “Internal State” with this text: {
>> >> An Agency or Organization’s Internal State is state that is defined by
>> the Agency or Organization’s text (Power or Charter), but not by any rules.
>> An Agency or Organization has a Responsible Player for each part of its
>> Internal State; the Responsible Player SHALL publish a weekly report
>> describing that state. If an organization or agency’s text states that it
>> wishes to use self-ratifying reports, then portions of the report that
>> describe this state are self-ratifying.
>> >> The responsible player for all of an Agency’s state is that agency’s
>> Head. An Organization’s Charter must define a member of the organization as
>> the Responsible Player for each portion of its state; any player can
>> destroy an organization which does not do so with 1 week Notice.
>> >> }
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Gaelan
>> >>> On May 28, 2017, at 3:41 PM, Aris Merchant > gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Gaelan Steele 
>> wrote:
>>  I create this AI-1.5 proposal “State of the Union” by Gaelan: <
>> 
>>  Create the power-1.5 rule “Internal State” with this text: {
>> 
>>  An Agency or Organization’s Internal State is state that is defined
>> by the
>>  Agency or Organization’s text (Power or Charter), but not by any
>> rules.
>> 
>>  An Agency or Organization has a Responsible Player for each part of
>> its
>>  Internal State; the Responsible Player SHALL publish a weekly report
>>  describing that state. The portion of such a report that describes
>> this
>>  state is self-ratifying.
>> 
>>  The responsible player for all of an Agency’s state is that agency’s
>> Head.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal Competition: Academia

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Quazie  wrote:
> I Object - I think a proposal competition around making things less messy
> might be more important at the moment vs adding a bunch of new academic
> stuff (I like the general idea, but it might not be the perfect time)

I object as well, with the same logic.

-Aris

Re: DIS: I don't want to CFJ, but let's just chat

[Quazie]

I'll add it to my long list of things to do.  I might get around to a
better writeup of the Agency rule today, if not, then tomorrow.

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:52 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't care if it's actually a problem or just appears to be one, we
> need to fix this. Care to write up a proposal Quazie?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Josh T 
> wrote:
> > If this is the case, I have no problem supporting such a proposal.
> >
> > 天火狐
> >
> > On 30 May 2017 at 14:26, Quazie  wrote:
> >>
> >> So grok left, and that's a bummer, but it's especially a bummer for me,
> >> the Superintendent - I think his agency still exists... there's nothing
> in
> >> the rule about Agencies that suggests it goes away, but I think the
> agency
> >> is fully neutered, as agencies only allow you to act on behalf of a
> player.
> >>
> >> Also - this likely means that PSS's agency to allow anyone to
> re-register
> >> em will never be effective.
> >>
> >> Let's not CFJ unless we need to, but I think we need to modify the
> Agency
> >> rule to allow the destruction of non-player Agencies at the least (or
> they
> >> will live `forever`)
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: I don't want to CFJ, but let's just chat

[Aris Merchant]

I don't care if it's actually a problem or just appears to be one, we
need to fix this. Care to write up a proposal Quazie?

-Aris

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Josh T  wrote:
> If this is the case, I have no problem supporting such a proposal.
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 30 May 2017 at 14:26, Quazie  wrote:
>>
>> So grok left, and that's a bummer, but it's especially a bummer for me,
>> the Superintendent - I think his agency still exists... there's nothing in
>> the rule about Agencies that suggests it goes away, but I think the agency
>> is fully neutered, as agencies only allow you to act on behalf of a player.
>>
>> Also - this likely means that PSS's agency to allow anyone to re-register
>> em will never be effective.
>>
>> Let's not CFJ unless we need to, but I think we need to modify the Agency
>> rule to allow the destruction of non-player Agencies at the least (or they
>> will live `forever`)
>
>

Re: DIS: ADoP and Assessor

[Gaelan Steele]

> On May 30, 2017, at 11:24 AM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> 1 - I'm only suggesting i become assessor (You noted promotor once)
Typo. 
> 2 - I'm not at all comfortable with updating a report automatically that I 
> don't own
> 3 - I'm mostly looking to make a script that makes vote tallying reasonable 
> via a series of csvs, and you can't really do work off of webhooks, as 
> results aren't real until they hit agora, not github.
> 4 - if you wanna hook things up after i've made some scripts, you can try, 
> but given I don't `own` your infrastructure, I do not promise to maintain 
> that link
All fair.
> 
> I'm already aiming to put myself under more Agora load than i'm comfortable 
> with - I will not maintain that link up (Sorry)
It's fine, makes total sense. 

Gaelan
> 
>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:20 AM Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> I'd love if your assessor scripts automatically updated the ruleset. My plan 
>> is to create proposals as git branches, then just have a script to merge 
>> them and fill in rule IDs, etc. If you kept a Promotor log on GitHub, I 
>> could probably set up a web hook that merged the accepted proposals.
>> 
>> > On May 30, 2017, at 9:17 AM, Quazie  wrote:
>> >
>> > I've almost completed my automated ADoP report (running off of csv files 
>> > recording all events) and should be able to publish the ADoP report easily 
>> > on time from now on.
>> >
>> > I'll get to writing an instant run-off script so I can handle all of the 
>> > Elections that are on-going and the elections that will be held after the 
>> > current round.
>> >
>> > I'll start with writing up some Assessor scripts as well later 
>> > today/tomorrow in hopes that I wont be too behind on publishing those 
>> > results.
>> >
>> > As stated: I am not in love with holding down as many offices as I have, 
>> > but I'm willing to give up the potential future Assessor, or my 
>> > Superintendent role, to anyone who wants them.  Superintendent's report 
>> > can be left easily up to date if anyone wants that role.

Re: DIS: I don't want to CFJ, but let's just chat

[Josh T]

If this is the case, I have no problem supporting such a proposal.

天火狐

On 30 May 2017 at 14:26, Quazie  wrote:

> So grok left, and that's a bummer, but it's especially a bummer for me,
> the Superintendent - I think his agency still exists... there's nothing in
> the rule about Agencies that suggests it goes away, but I think the agency
> is fully neutered, as agencies only allow you to act on behalf of a player.
>
> Also - this likely means that PSS's agency to allow anyone to re-register
> em will never be effective.
>
> Let's not CFJ unless we need to, but I think we need to modify the Agency
> rule to allow the destruction of non-player Agencies at the least (or they
> will live `forever`)
>

DIS: I don't want to CFJ, but let's just chat

[Quazie]

So grok left, and that's a bummer, but it's especially a bummer for me, the
Superintendent - I think his agency still exists... there's nothing in the
rule about Agencies that suggests it goes away, but I think the agency is
fully neutered, as agencies only allow you to act on behalf of a player.

Also - this likely means that PSS's agency to allow anyone to re-register
em will never be effective.

Let's not CFJ unless we need to, but I think we need to modify the Agency
rule to allow the destruction of non-player Agencies at the least (or they
will live `forever`)

Re: DIS: ADoP and Assessor

[Quazie]

1 - I'm only suggesting i become assessor (You noted promotor once)
2 - I'm not at all comfortable with updating a report automatically that I
don't own
3 - I'm mostly looking to make a script that makes vote tallying reasonable
via a series of csvs, and you can't really do work off of webhooks, as
results aren't real until they hit agora, not github.
4 - if you wanna hook things up after i've made some scripts, you can try,
but given I don't `own` your infrastructure, I do not promise to maintain
that link

I'm already aiming to put myself under more Agora load than i'm comfortable
with - I will not maintain that link up (Sorry)

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:20 AM Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> I'd love if your assessor scripts automatically updated the ruleset. My
> plan is to create proposals as git branches, then just have a script to
> merge them and fill in rule IDs, etc. If you kept a Promotor log on GitHub,
> I could probably set up a web hook that merged the accepted proposals.
>
> > On May 30, 2017, at 9:17 AM, Quazie  wrote:
> >
> > I've almost completed my automated ADoP report (running off of csv files
> recording all events) and should be able to publish the ADoP report easily
> on time from now on.
> >
> > I'll get to writing an instant run-off script so I can handle all of the
> Elections that are on-going and the elections that will be held after the
> current round.
> >
> > I'll start with writing up some Assessor scripts as well later
> today/tomorrow in hopes that I wont be too behind on publishing those
> results.
> >
> > As stated: I am not in love with holding down as many offices as I have,
> but I'm willing to give up the potential future Assessor, or my
> Superintendent role, to anyone who wants them.  Superintendent's report can
> be left easily up to date if anyone wants that role.
>

Re: DIS: ADoP and Assessor

[Gaelan Steele]

I'd love if your assessor scripts automatically updated the ruleset. My plan is 
to create proposals as git branches, then just have a script to merge them and 
fill in rule IDs, etc. If you kept a Promotor log on GitHub, I could probably 
set up a web hook that merged the accepted proposals. 

> On May 30, 2017, at 9:17 AM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> I've almost completed my automated ADoP report (running off of csv files 
> recording all events) and should be able to publish the ADoP report easily on 
> time from now on.
> 
> I'll get to writing an instant run-off script so I can handle all of the 
> Elections that are on-going and the elections that will be held after the 
> current round.
> 
> I'll start with writing up some Assessor scripts as well later today/tomorrow 
> in hopes that I wont be too behind on publishing those results.
> 
> As stated: I am not in love with holding down as many offices as I have, but 
> I'm willing to give up the potential future Assessor, or my Superintendent 
> role, to anyone who wants them.  Superintendent's report can be left easily 
> up to date if anyone wants that role.

Re: DIS: ADoP and Assessor

[Quazie]

Superintendent's report (on github) is now up to date: Also, I hate new
emoji unicode chars, they look so ugly in this plain text report:
https://agoranomic.github.io/Superintendent/reports/month/next.txt

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 9:17 AM Quazie  wrote:

> I've almost completed my automated ADoP report (running off of csv files
> recording all events) and should be able to publish the ADoP report easily
> on time from now on.
>
> I'll get to writing an instant run-off script so I can handle all of the
> Elections that are on-going and the elections that will be held after the
> current round.
>
> I'll start with writing up some Assessor scripts as well later
> today/tomorrow in hopes that I wont be too behind on publishing those
> results.
>
> As stated: I am not in love with holding down as many offices as I have,
> but I'm willing to give up the potential future Assessor, or my
> Superintendent role, to anyone who wants them.  Superintendent's report can
> be left easily up to date if anyone wants that role.
>

DIS: ADoP and Assessor

[Quazie]

I've almost completed my automated ADoP report (running off of csv files
recording all events) and should be able to publish the ADoP report easily
on time from now on.

I'll get to writing an instant run-off script so I can handle all of the
Elections that are on-going and the elections that will be held after the
current round.

I'll start with writing up some Assessor scripts as well later
today/tomorrow in hopes that I wont be too behind on publishing those
results.

As stated: I am not in love with holding down as many offices as I have,
but I'm willing to give up the potential future Assessor, or my
Superintendent role, to anyone who wants them.  Superintendent's report can
be left easily up to date if anyone wants that role.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] State of the Union

[Quazie]

Suggestion:

For the agency the responsible person is the head. For an organization the
responsible person is either defined by the organization, or the player
with the highest budget switch if not defined.
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 03:15 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I like this revision because it seems to have closed the loopholes of the
> last one. However, one issue I see is if the member of the Organization
> leaves, it is unclear what occurs. For your ease, I have compiled my
> suggested revisions below:
>
> Create the power-1.5 rule “Internal State” with this text: {
> An Agency or Organization’s Internal State is state that is defined by the
> Agency or Organization’s text (Power or Charter), but not by any rules. An
> Agency or Organization has a Responsible Player for each part of its
> Internal State; the Responsible Player SHALL publish a weekly report
> describing that part of the state. If an organization or agency’s text
> states that it wishes to use self-ratifying reports, then portions of the
> report that describe this state are self-ratifying.
> The responsible player for all of an Agency’s state is that agency’s Head.
> An Organization’s Charter must define a member of the organization as the
> Responsible Player for each portion of its state; any player can destroy an
> organization which does not do so with 1 week Notice.
> If the member leaves the organization, any member may publish the report
> and the player with the highest budget switch SHALL do so in a timely
> manner.
> }
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On May 30, 2017, at 2:47 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> >
> > OK, this is plain embarrassing.
> >
> > I retract “State of the Union."
> >
> > I create this AI-1.5 proposal “State of the Union v2” by Gaelan, PSS and
> Aris: <
> > Create the power-1.5 rule “Internal State” with this text: {
> > An Agency or Organization’s Internal State is state that is defined by
> the Agency or Organization’s text (Power or Charter), but not by any rules.
> An Agency or Organization has a Responsible Player for each part of its
> Internal State; the Responsible Player SHALL publish a weekly report
> describing that state. If an organization or agency’s text states that it
> wishes to use self-ratifying reports, then portions of the report that
> describe this state are self-ratifying.
> > The responsible player for all of an Agency’s state is that agency’s
> Head. An Organization’s Charter must define a member of the organization as
> the Responsible Player for each portion of its state; any player can
> destroy an organization which does not do so with 1 week Notice.
> > }
> > >
> >
> > Gaelan
> >
> >> On May 29, 2017, at 11:46 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> >>
> >> I retract “State of the Union."
> >>
> >> I create this AI-1.5 proposal “State of the Union v2” by Gaelan, PSS
> and Aris: <
> >> Create the power-1.5 rule “Internal State” with this text: {
> >> An Agency or Organization’s Internal State is state that is defined by
> the Agency or Organization’s text (Power or Charter), but not by any rules.
> An Agency or Organization has a Responsible Player for each part of its
> Internal State; the Responsible Player SHALL publish a weekly report
> describing that state. If an organization or agency’s text states that it
> wishes to use self-ratifying reports, then portions of the report that
> describe this state are self-ratifying.
> >> The responsible player for all of an Agency’s state is that agency’s
> Head. An Organization’s Charter must define a member of the organization as
> the Responsible Player for each portion of its state; any player can
> destroy an organization which does not do so with 1 week Notice.
> >> }
> >> >
> >>
> >> Gaelan
> >>> On May 28, 2017, at 3:41 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Gaelan Steele 
> wrote:
>  I create this AI-1.5 proposal “State of the Union” by Gaelan: <
> 
>  Create the power-1.5 rule “Internal State” with this text: {
> 
>  An Agency or Organization’s Internal State is state that is defined
> by the
>  Agency or Organization’s text (Power or Charter), but not by any
> rules.
> 
>  An Agency or Organization has a Responsible Player for each part of
> its
>  Internal State; the Responsible Player SHALL publish a weekly report
>  describing that state. The portion of such a report that describes
> this
>  state is self-ratifying.
> 
>  The responsible player for all of an Agency’s state is that agency’s
> Head.
>  An Organization’s Charter must define a Responsible Player for all of
> its
>  state; any player can destroy an organization which does not do so
> with 1
>  week Notice.
> 
>  }
> 
> >
> 
>  This is a half-proto; 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Martin Rönsch]

I like this proposal. It fixes the problem of growing caseloads for 
judges while still ensuring that important CFJs (those that multiple 
people have an interest in) get judged.


However this proposal does not address the problem of growing caseload 
for Arbitor and recordkeeping of CFJs. The Arbitor still has to keep 
track of all open CFJs and who has interest in them and with this 
proposal now also who is eligible for which CFJ to judge.


I think there are only two ways out of this:

1) Reducing the number of CFJs that are called.

2) Restructuring the duties of the Arbitor

I am opposed to reducing the number of CFJs by legislative ways, so here 
is an Idea how to help the Arbitor out: 1. Create a new 
office (Clerc) whose duties are to keep track of open unassigned CFJs 
and the arguments
connected to them. This office then publishes a weekly 
report with all open CFJs.
2. The Arbitor is already only required to assign cases within 
a week so this would give em the chance to assign cases in bunch 
once a week after the clerc published eir report.

3. Encourage eligible judges to selfassign cases
This would hopefully preprocess the open cases for the Arbitor, so that 
e only assign cases nobody already picked up during the week.
I realize this creates another office that needs to be filled, but I 
don't see any other way to relief the Arbitor.


Veggiekeks

Am 30.05.2017 um 08:41 schrieb Gaelan Steele:

Bah.

I retract “Judicial Reform.”

I create the AI-2 proposal “Judicial Reform v2” by Gaelan, Aris and 
Quazie with the following text: <


Amend R991 “Calls for Judgement” by replacing the last paragraph
with {

“Judge Status” is a player switch tracked by the Arbitor in
eir monthly report, with valid values of “Narrow” (default)
and “Wide.” A player may flip eir own Judge Status by
announcement.


When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any
player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within
a week, but CANNOT do so if fewer than 2 days have passed
since the CFJ was initiated. The players eligible to be
assigned as judge are players except the initiator and the
person barred (if any) who fulfill one of these requirements:

1. Eir Judge Status is set to Narrow, and they have publicly
declared Interest in the CFJ.

2. Eir Judge Status is set to Wide, and they have not publicly
declared Disinterest in the CFJ.

The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to
judge. If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then any player
eligible to judge that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3
Objections.


If there are no eligible judges for a CFJ for a period of 2
weeks, any player CAN judge it as DISMISS with 2 days Notice.

}

For all players who have been assigned a CFJ within the past 2
weeks, flip their Judge Status to Wide.

>

Gaelan

On May 29, 2017, at 11:39 PM, Gaelan Steele > wrote:


I retract “Judicial Reform.”

I create the AI-2 proposal “Judicial Reform v2” by Gaelan, Aris and 
Quazie with the following text: <


Amend R991 “Calls for Judgement” by replacing the last paragraph
with {

“Judge Status” is a player switch tracked by the Arbitor in
eir monthly report, with valid values of “Narrow” (default)
and “Wide.” A player may flip eir own Judge Status by
announcement.


When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any
player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so
within a week, but CANNOT do so if fewer than 2 days have
passed since the CFJ was initiated. The players eligible to
be assigned as judge are players except the initiator and
the person barred (if any) who fulfill one of these requirements:
1. Eir Judge Status is set to Narrow, and they have publicly
declared Interest in the CFJ.
2. Eir Judge Status is set to Wide, and they have not
publicly declared Disinterest in the CFJ.
The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to
judge. If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then
any player eligible to judge that CFJ CAN assign it to emself
Without 3 Objections.

If there are no eligible judges for a CFJ for a period of 2
weeks, any player CAN judge it as DISMISS with 2 days Notice.

}

For all players who have been assigned a CFJ within the past 2
weeks, flip their Judge Status to Wide.

>

Gaelan

On May 29, 2017, at 6:25 PM, Quazie > wrote:


On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 6:17 PM Gaelan Steele 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] State of the Union

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I like this revision because it seems to have closed the loopholes of the last 
one. However, one issue I see is if the member of the Organization leaves, it 
is unclear what occurs. For your ease, I have compiled my suggested revisions 
below:

Create the power-1.5 rule “Internal State” with this text: {
An Agency or Organization’s Internal State is state that is defined by the 
Agency or Organization’s text (Power or Charter), but not by any rules. An 
Agency or Organization has a Responsible Player for each part of its Internal 
State; the Responsible Player SHALL publish a weekly report describing that 
part of the state. If an organization or agency’s text states that it wishes to 
use self-ratifying reports, then portions of the report that describe this 
state are self-ratifying.
The responsible player for all of an Agency’s state is that agency’s Head. An 
Organization’s Charter must define a member of the organization as the 
Responsible Player for each portion of its state; any player can destroy an 
organization which does not do so with 1 week Notice.
If the member leaves the organization, any member may publish the report and 
the player with the highest budget switch SHALL do so in a timely manner.
}

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 30, 2017, at 2:47 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> OK, this is plain embarrassing.
> 
> I retract “State of the Union."
> 
> I create this AI-1.5 proposal “State of the Union v2” by Gaelan, PSS and 
> Aris: <
> Create the power-1.5 rule “Internal State” with this text: {
> An Agency or Organization’s Internal State is state that is defined by the 
> Agency or Organization’s text (Power or Charter), but not by any rules. An 
> Agency or Organization has a Responsible Player for each part of its Internal 
> State; the Responsible Player SHALL publish a weekly report describing that 
> state. If an organization or agency’s text states that it wishes to use 
> self-ratifying reports, then portions of the report that describe this state 
> are self-ratifying.
> The responsible player for all of an Agency’s state is that agency’s Head. An 
> Organization’s Charter must define a member of the organization as the 
> Responsible Player for each portion of its state; any player can destroy an 
> organization which does not do so with 1 week Notice.
> }
> >
> 
> Gaelan
> 
>> On May 29, 2017, at 11:46 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> 
>> I retract “State of the Union."
>> 
>> I create this AI-1.5 proposal “State of the Union v2” by Gaelan, PSS and 
>> Aris: <
>> Create the power-1.5 rule “Internal State” with this text: {
>> An Agency or Organization’s Internal State is state that is defined by the 
>> Agency or Organization’s text (Power or Charter), but not by any rules. An 
>> Agency or Organization has a Responsible Player for each part of its 
>> Internal State; the Responsible Player SHALL publish a weekly report 
>> describing that state. If an organization or agency’s text states that it 
>> wishes to use self-ratifying reports, then portions of the report that 
>> describe this state are self-ratifying.
>> The responsible player for all of an Agency’s state is that agency’s Head. 
>> An Organization’s Charter must define a member of the organization as the 
>> Responsible Player for each portion of its state; any player can destroy an 
>> organization which does not do so with 1 week Notice.
>> }
>> >
>> 
>> Gaelan
>>> On May 28, 2017, at 3:41 PM, Aris Merchant 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
 I create this AI-1.5 proposal “State of the Union” by Gaelan: <
 
 Create the power-1.5 rule “Internal State” with this text: {
 
 An Agency or Organization’s Internal State is state that is defined by the
 Agency or Organization’s text (Power or Charter), but not by any rules.
 
 An Agency or Organization has a Responsible Player for each part of its
 Internal State; the Responsible Player SHALL publish a weekly report
 describing that state. The portion of such a report that describes this
 state is self-ratifying.
 
 The responsible player for all of an Agency’s state is that agency’s Head.
 An Organization’s Charter must define a Responsible Player for all of its
 state; any player can destroy an organization which does not do so with 1
 week Notice.
 
 }
 
> 
 
 This is a half-proto; I’ll retract it if changes are required or pend it if
 they are not.
>>> 
>>> Several problems. The worst one that you're imposing obligations on a
>>> person who need not be a member of the organization. I'd also suggest
>>> making the self-ratifying bit optional, although I can see arguments
>>> for and against that.
>>> 
>>> -Aris
>> 
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I like this, but I think also adding procedural DISMISSALS without objection 
would be a helpful addition.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 30, 2017, at 2:41 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> Bah. 
> 
> I retract “Judicial Reform.”
> 
> I create the AI-2 proposal “Judicial Reform v2” by Gaelan, Aris and Quazie 
> with the following text: <
> Amend R991 “Calls for Judgement” by replacing the last paragraph with {
> “Judge Status” is a player switch tracked by the Arbitor in eir monthly 
> report, with valid values of “Narrow” (default) and “Wide.” A player may flip 
> eir own Judge Status by announcement.
> 
> When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any player to be its 
> judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within a week, but CANNOT do so if 
> fewer than 2 days have passed since the CFJ was initiated. The players 
> eligible to be assigned as judge are players except the initiator and the 
> person barred (if any) who fulfill one of these requirements:
> 1. Eir Judge Status is set to Narrow, and they have publicly declared 
> Interest in the CFJ.
> 2. Eir Judge Status is set to Wide, and they have not publicly declared 
> Disinterest in the CFJ.
> The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all interested players 
> have reasonably equal opportunities to judge. If a CFJ has no judge assigned, 
> then any player eligible to judge that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3 
> Objections.
> 
> If there are no eligible judges for a CFJ for a period of 2 weeks, any player 
> CAN judge it as DISMISS with 2 days Notice.
> }
> 
> For all players who have been assigned a CFJ within the past 2 weeks, flip 
> their Judge Status to Wide.
> >
> 
> Gaelan
> 
>> On May 29, 2017, at 11:39 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> 
>> I retract “Judicial Reform.”
>> 
>> I create the AI-2 proposal “Judicial Reform v2” by Gaelan, Aris and Quazie 
>> with the following text: <
>> Amend R991 “Calls for Judgement” by replacing the last paragraph with {
>> “Judge Status” is a player switch tracked by the Arbitor in eir monthly 
>> report, with valid values of “Narrow” (default) and “Wide.” A player may 
>> flip eir own Judge Status by announcement.
>> 
>> When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any player to be 
>> its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within a week, but CANNOT do so 
>> if fewer than 2 days have passed since the CFJ was initiated. The players 
>> eligible to be assigned as judge are players except the initiator and the 
>> person barred (if any) who fulfill one of these requirements:
>> 1. Eir Judge Status is set to Narrow, and they have publicly declared 
>> Interest in the CFJ.
>> 2. Eir Judge Status is set to Wide, and they have not publicly declared 
>> Disinterest in the CFJ.
>> The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all interested players 
>> have reasonably equal opportunities to judge. If a CFJ has no judge 
>> assigned, then any player eligible to judge that CFJ CAN assign it to emself 
>> Without 3 Objections.
>> 
>> If there are no eligible judges for a CFJ for a period of 2 weeks, any 
>> player CAN judge it as DISMISS with 2 days Notice.
>> }
>> 
>> For all players who have been assigned a CFJ within the past 2 weeks, flip 
>> their Judge Status to Wide.
>> >
>> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>>> On May 29, 2017, at 6:25 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 6:17 PM Gaelan Steele  wrote:
 On May 29, 2017, at 6:04 PM, Aris Merchant 
  wrote:
 
 Missing a close parenthesis. Why do we need None? Surely any player
 could occasionally want to judge a case, so the distinction seems
 unnecessary.
>>> Fair.
>>> 
 I'd also make Wide the default, although that is open to
 debate. The judicial system is a good way to get new players involved.
>>> That’s a departure from the current system (not necessarily bad). However, 
>>> I’m still against it—I feel that judging should be a decision a player 
>>> makes when they feel they understand enough of the ruleset to jump in, and 
>>> faulty judgements from new players help nobody. 
>>> 
>>> None should be the default - A new player shouldn't be hit with judging a 
>>> CFJ immediately - Judicial duties should be opt in.
>> 
> 

Re: DIS: Proto/Suggestion: Agoran Provinces

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I think we should trust Aris on this because he has more experience, but we 
could still experiment with the concept through agencies or orgs.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 29, 2017, at 8:43 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:05 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
>> In order to break this "critical mass" of activity, I suggest dividing the
>> game into three (simplified) sub-nomics, and have them each develop as their
>> own Province.
>> 
>> There has been precedence of Agora having a similar "divide" (the Blots and
>> such), although this would be making the slices in a different way. Perhaps
>> it helps. (Also, this is personal interest, but I would love to see
>> differences in 'axiomatic' perspectives in each one and see how each
>> mini-Agora develops.)
>> 
>> This is also inspired in the BLO vs GNO vs MIC dynasty of Blognomic:
>> https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=The_Fourth_Metadynasty which
>> seemed to be one of the more interesting ones, and we have the amount of
>> players to make it work.
>> 
>> This definitely qualifies for "radical" ideal though, and as ais has pointed
>> out, may not work. But I figure it would be good to put this out anyway, for
>> consideration.
> 
> **Very strong oppose.** Everyone, please note ais523's warning "It's
> interesting to note that at times of lower activity, when there isn't
> a functioning economy, players tend to make wild and drastic changes
> to the rules in the hope that there'll be more to discuss. This nearly
> always backfires and leaves the mailing lists dead for months at a
> time." I'd like very much to avoid that happening. Agora is the most
> active it's been in years, and while we're going through some growing
> pains, I strongly doubt this would fix anything. It seems like it
> would be more likely just to make everything a chaotic mess, and/or
> convince all of our remaining experienced players to leave.
> 
> -Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] State of the Union

[Gaelan Steele]

I retract “State of the Union."

I create this AI-1.5 proposal “State of the Union v2” by Gaelan, PSS and Aris: <
Create the power-1.5 rule “Internal State” with this text: {
An Agency or Organization’s Internal State is state that is defined by the 
Agency or Organization’s text (Power or Charter), but not by any rules. An 
Agency or Organization has a Responsible Player for each part of its Internal 
State; the Responsible Player SHALL publish a weekly report describing that 
state. If an organization or agency’s text states that it wishes to use 
self-ratifying reports, then portions of the report that describe this state 
are self-ratifying.
The responsible player for all of an Agency’s state is that agency’s Head. An 
Organization’s Charter must define a member of the organization as the 
Responsible Player for each portion of its state; any player can destroy an 
organization which does not do so with 1 week Notice.
}
>

Gaelan
> On May 28, 2017, at 3:41 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> I create this AI-1.5 proposal “State of the Union” by Gaelan: <
>> 
>> Create the power-1.5 rule “Internal State” with this text: {
>> 
>> An Agency or Organization’s Internal State is state that is defined by the
>> Agency or Organization’s text (Power or Charter), but not by any rules.
>> 
>> An Agency or Organization has a Responsible Player for each part of its
>> Internal State; the Responsible Player SHALL publish a weekly report
>> describing that state. The portion of such a report that describes this
>> state is self-ratifying.
>> 
>> The responsible player for all of an Agency’s state is that agency’s Head.
>> An Organization’s Charter must define a Responsible Player for all of its
>> state; any player can destroy an organization which does not do so with 1
>> week Notice.
>> 
>> }
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> This is a half-proto; I’ll retract it if changes are required or pend it if
>> they are not.
> 
> Several problems. The worst one that you're imposing obligations on a
> person who need not be a member of the organization. I'd also suggest
> making the self-ratifying bit optional, although I can see arguments
> for and against that.
> 
> -Aris



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Gaelan Steele]

I retract “Judicial Reform.”

I create the AI-2 proposal “Judicial Reform v2” by Gaelan, Aris and Quazie with 
the following text: <
Amend R991 “Calls for Judgement” by replacing the last paragraph with {
“Judge Status” is a player switch tracked by the Arbitor in eir monthly report, 
with valid values of “Narrow” (default) and “Wide.” A player may flip eir own 
Judge Status by announcement.

When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any player to be its 
judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within a week, but CANNOT do so if fewer 
than 2 days have passed since the CFJ was initiated. The players eligible to be 
assigned as judge are players except the initiator and the person barred (if 
any) who fulfill one of these requirements:
1. Eir Judge Status is set to Narrow, and they have publicly declared Interest 
in the CFJ.
2. Eir Judge Status is set to Wide, and they have not publicly declared 
Disinterest in the CFJ.
The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all interested players have 
reasonably equal opportunities to judge. If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then 
any player eligible to judge that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3 
Objections.

If there are no eligible judges for a CFJ for a period of 2 weeks, any player 
CAN judge it as DISMISS with 2 days Notice.
}

For all players who have been assigned a CFJ within the past 2 weeks, flip 
their Judge Status to Wide.
>

Gaelan

> On May 29, 2017, at 6:25 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 6:17 PM Gaelan Steele  > wrote:
>> On May 29, 2017, at 6:04 PM, Aris Merchant 
>> > > wrote:
>> 
>> Missing a close parenthesis. Why do we need None? Surely any player
>> could occasionally want to judge a case, so the distinction seems
>> unnecessary.
> 
> Fair.
> 
>> I'd also make Wide the default, although that is open to
>> debate. The judicial system is a good way to get new players involved.
> 
> That’s a departure from the current system (not necessarily bad). However, 
> I’m still against it—I feel that judging should be a decision a player makes 
> when they feel they understand enough of the ruleset to jump in, and faulty 
> judgements from new players help nobody. 
> 
> None should be the default - A new player shouldn't be hit with judging a CFJ 
> immediately - Judicial duties should be opt in.



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature