Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: CFJ 3509 Judgement (Dismissed, insufficient information)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I have some thoughts for revamping it and I could throw something together,
if others share there ideas on what would make it helpful.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 25 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 14:53 +, Quazie wrote:
> > > I still think some thing along the lines of: "A judge may recuse emself
> > > from a case, at which point they become unassigned from said case.
> When a
> > > judge recuses emself, or is late to judge a CFJ and eir cade had been
> > > reassigned, they become ineligible to be assigned as a judge for a
> week"
> >
> > If a judge times out from a case without an obvious explanation as to
> > why, I remove them from the list (although they can go back on the list
> > by announcement).
> >
> > This is basically the old "standing court" system of assigning judges
> > (although the numbers I'm using in my system are slightly different
> > from the old system, in that the number of CFJs per judge can get
> > slightly more out of sync, the same basic principles still apply).
>
> The informal method of the last few years worked well-enough at low
> traffic,
> but given the high volume of the last month, we may need an overall
> CFJ process rewrite/formalization to smooth things out, I think several
> issues are cropping up.
>
> (list:  more flexibile voluntary recusals, assignment swapping, non-player
> judges, processed-based DISMISSALS).
>
> There was nothing *wrong* with the old standing court system, and it had
> it's interesting gaming aspects (e.g. in scams, waiting until the rotation
> brought up someone favorable).  It was just a lot of machinery when there
> were just a few of us and the pace was slow.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: CFJ 3509 Judgement (Dismissed, insufficient information)

[Gaelan Steele]

My bad. Just forgot

Gaelan

> On May 25, 2017, at 10:32 AM, Josh T  wrote:
> 
> @Gaelan: I have expressed a desire to not be referred to by my real name. 
> While there is nothing in the rules that prevents you from doing so, I shall 
> glare at you menacingly for ignore my wishes. 
> 
> I have gotten the mailing list to accept 天火狐 as my name as of this message, 
> and if everything goes well it should use that for the name field of the 
> email than pulling directly from gmail, hopefully. 
> 
> 天火狐
> 
>> On 25 May 2017 at 13:20, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> This could probably go do DIS, but I’m sending it to BUS just in case.
>> 
>> I would like CFJ’s that focus more on interpreting the rules than abstract 
>> philosophy. Examples:
>> Josh’s ambiguity CFJ - no
>> My pink slip CFJ - yes
>> That “no Player” CFJ - yes. It is not relevant to current gameplay, but it 
>> is still a simple reading of the rules and examination of precedent
>>> On May 25, 2017, at 7:48 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
>>> 
 On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 14:45 +, Quazie wrote:
 Is it reasonable to request to you not be eligible for certain
 judicial subsets?
 
 Could I ask to be ineligible for CFJs about Card based actions for
 example?
 - not that I want this, just asking about the concept.
>>> 
>>> I think that's a reasonable request. Judging some CFJs gives more judge
>>> variety than judging none at all.
>>> 
>>> There do need to be limits in case of abuses (e.g. asking only to judge
>>> about scams by a particular coconspirator), but that can be partially
>>> dealt with by barring, and that sort of bad faith request would be
>>> fairly obvious and thus ignorable.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> ais523
>> 
> 

Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: CFJ 3509 Judgement (Dismissed, insufficient information)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 25 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 14:53 +, Quazie wrote:
> > I still think some thing along the lines of: "A judge may recuse emself
> > from a case, at which point they become unassigned from said case. When a
> > judge recuses emself, or is late to judge a CFJ and eir cade had been
> > reassigned, they become ineligible to be assigned as a judge for a week"
> 
> If a judge times out from a case without an obvious explanation as to
> why, I remove them from the list (although they can go back on the list
> by announcement).
> 
> This is basically the old "standing court" system of assigning judges
> (although the numbers I'm using in my system are slightly different
> from the old system, in that the number of CFJs per judge can get
> slightly more out of sync, the same basic principles still apply).

The informal method of the last few years worked well-enough at low traffic,
but given the high volume of the last month, we may need an overall
CFJ process rewrite/formalization to smooth things out, I think several
issues are cropping up.

(list:  more flexibile voluntary recusals, assignment swapping, non-player
judges, processed-based DISMISSALS).

There was nothing *wrong* with the old standing court system, and it had
it's interesting gaming aspects (e.g. in scams, waiting until the rotation 
brought up someone favorable).  It was just a lot of machinery when there
were just a few of us and the pace was slow.

Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: CFJ 3509 Judgement (Dismissed, insufficient information)

[Josh T]

@Gaelan: I have expressed a desire to not be referred to by my real name.
While there is nothing in the rules that prevents you from doing so, I
shall glare at you menacingly for ignore my wishes.

I have gotten the mailing list to accept 天火狐 as my name as of this message,
and if everything goes well it should use that for the name field of the
email than pulling directly from gmail, hopefully.

天火狐

On 25 May 2017 at 13:20, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> This could probably go do DIS, but I’m sending it to BUS just in case.
>
> I would like CFJ’s that focus more on interpreting the rules than abstract
> philosophy. Examples:
>
>- Josh’s ambiguity CFJ - no
>- My pink slip CFJ - yes
>- That “no Player” CFJ - yes. It is not relevant to current gameplay,
>but it is still a simple reading of the rules and examination of precedent
>
> On May 25, 2017, at 7:48 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 14:45 +, Quazie wrote:
>
> Is it reasonable to request to you not be eligible for certain
> judicial subsets?
>
> Could I ask to be ineligible for CFJs about Card based actions for
> example?
> - not that I want this, just asking about the concept.
>
>
> I think that's a reasonable request. Judging some CFJs gives more judge
> variety than judging none at all.
>
> There do need to be limits in case of abuses (e.g. asking only to judge
> about scams by a particular coconspirator), but that can be partially
> dealt with by barring, and that sort of bad faith request would be
> fairly obvious and thus ignorable.
>
> --
> ais523
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: CFJ 3509 Judgement (Dismissed, insufficient information)

[caleb vines]

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:54 AM, CuddleBeam 
 wrote:

> @ais523: Super. Thank you! I'll try to make a sufficiently eloquent but also 
> concise and easy-to-use definition of what kind of cases I find myself more 
> suitable for, but it's definitely the more philosophical kind, because I will 
> go above and beyond to give it a better answer than just "it's irrelevant to 
> gameplay".
>
>
> (Like goddamn, ambiguity and concerns of language and meaning are PRECISELY a 
> big reason why we have CFJs in the first place to get clarity, I believe. Why 
> wouldn't "ambiguity" itself be extremely relevant! It's a cornerstone in this 
> nomic! It's the soil we're all standing on! Aaaah!)
>
>
Ambiguity and language are a big reason why we have CFJs. They're also
specifically given judicial precedence in a number of CFJs in the
past--975, 1439, 1460, and recent CFJs 3499 and 3500.

The soil we stand on is not untilled; there are 20 years worth of other
players' work that give us the foundation to answer these seemingly obtuse
philosophical questions quickly. Does that mean we don't have as many hard
philosophical questions to answer? Sure. But it also means that the
philosophical questions we DO get to answer are much more challenging and
rewarding.


@Nic Evans: Yes. I'm still a rookie, so all I ask for is patience as I
attempt to make a better result.
>
>
> I find the use of the term "Agoran" a bit curious though. Even if I do make 
> CFJs in a way that is perceived to be incorrect, I am (part of) Agora now 
> too. So that would, while perceived to be deviant, now contribute to what 
> makes things actually "Agoran".
>
>
> In fact, someone absolutely psychotic but with good faith could join and 
> honestly submit/judge CFJs as cookie recipes, and now part of Agora is 
> entirely seriously considering CFJs to be cookie recipes (as seriously as you 
> may consider that CFJs should be done in the usual way that real life law 
> does it). And in a dystropian case, plenty of that kind of mentally ill 
> people could join, and then, what would be Agoran, would be to have CFJ be 
> cookie recipes.
>
>
That's why we have the appeal system. Agora and nomics in general advance
based on the will of consensus, even in the CFJ framework. There may always
be a "part" of Agora that seeks to interpret the Ruleset in the most obtuse
way possible, but that won't become precedent unless there is consensus
about those obtuse interpretations. Agora also has the Red Card
specifically for when those events occur. That's part of why Referee is an
office; so an established player with the best for the game in mind can
prevent mass vote manipulation and bad faith actions that would not treat
Agora Right Good.

Then again, if your dystropian all decided to become cookie recipe psychos,
I could hook you up with my favorites...


On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Quazie  wrote:

> Well bad judgments can be overturned - so the cookie recepies likely
> wouldn't stand
>
> Unless:
>
> I CFJ on the following statement:
>
> 'The judge assigned to this CFJ will be kind enough to include eir
> favorite cookie recipe in eir judgment.'
>

Right on cue. I request to be assigned this CFJ, and I will withdraw that
request if Cuddlebeam wishes to be assigned this CFJ. (this post is too
informal for a public forum and thus a legitimate pledge, so consider this
a casual promise.)


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: CFJ 3509 Judgement (Dismissed, insufficient information)

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 16:58 +, Quazie wrote:
> Well bad judgments can be overturned - so the cookie recepies likely
> wouldn't stand
> 
> Unless:
> 
> I CFJ on the following statement:
> 
> 'The judge assigned to this CFJ will be kind enough to include eir
> favorite cookie recipe in eir judgment.'

Is this the sort of CFJ CuddleBeam wants? E's slightly ahead of other
players on CFJ assignments atm, so if I assign this one to em, e wouldn
't get another for a while. So it's worth verifying that before I
assign it.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: CFJ 3509 Judgement (Dismissed, insufficient information)

[CuddleBeam]

@ais523: Super. Thank you! I'll try to make a sufficiently eloquent
but also concise and easy-to-use definition of what kind of cases I
find myself more suitable for, but it's definitely the more
philosophical kind, because I will go above and beyond to give it a
better answer than just "it's irrelevant to gameplay".


(Like goddamn, ambiguity and concerns of language and meaning are
PRECISELY a big reason why we have CFJs in the first place to get
clarity, I believe. Why wouldn't "ambiguity" itself be extremely
relevant! It's a cornerstone in this nomic! It's the soil we're all
standing on! Aaaah!)


@Nic Evans: Yes. I'm still a rookie, so all I ask for is patience as I
attempt to make a better result.


I find the use of the term "Agoran" a bit curious though. Even if I do
make CFJs in a way that is perceived to be incorrect, I am (part of)
Agora now too. So that would, while perceived to be deviant, now
contribute to what makes things actually "Agoran".


In fact, someone absolutely psychotic but with good faith could join
and honestly submit/judge CFJs as cookie recipes, and now part of
Agora is entirely seriously considering CFJs to be cookie recipes (as
seriously as you may consider that CFJs should be done in the usual
way that real life law does it). And in a dystropian case, plenty of
that kind of mentally ill people could join, and then, what would be
Agoran, would be to have CFJ be cookie recipes.


However I do agree with that the standard you mention is a Good Idea.

Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: CFJ 3509 Judgement (Dismissed, insufficient information)

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 14:53 +, Quazie wrote:
> I still think some thing along the lines of: "A judge may recuse emself
> from a case, at which point they become unassigned from said case. When a
> judge recuses emself, or is late to judge a CFJ and eir cade had been
> reassigned, they become ineligible to be assigned as a judge for a week"

If a judge times out from a case without an obvious explanation as to
why, I remove them from the list (although they can go back on the list
by announcement).

This is basically the old "standing court" system of assigning judges
(although the numbers I'm using in my system are slightly different
from the old system, in that the number of CFJs per judge can get
slightly more out of sync, the same basic principles still apply).

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: CFJ 3509 Judgement (Dismissed, insufficient information)

[Quazie]

I still think some thing along the lines of: "A judge may recuse emself
from a case, at which point they become unassigned from said case. When a
judge recuses emself, or is late to judge a CFJ and eir cade had been
reassigned, they become ineligible to be assigned as a judge for a week"
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 07:49 Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> Idea: "offer" CFJs instead of assigning them. Have an Agency that lets us
> accept an offered CFJ, at which point it actually assigns.
>
> > On May 25, 2017, at 7:41 AM, Alex Smith 
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 14:20 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote:
> >> As for removing myself, I believe I am extremely appropriate for certain
> >> flavors of CFJ. I wish there was a way I could be assigned mostly those
> >> specifically.
> > If there's a particular sort of CFJ you'd like to focus on, you can let
> > me know, and I can try to bias the CFJ selection towards that. (The
> > rules currently require me to balance CFJ judge selection over time,
> > but with few judges having specific preferences, it's normally possible
> > to give each judge the sort of CFJs they want via changing which CFJs
> > are given to the judges who have no preference.)
> >
> > It'd help if you could give a reasonably clear and precise definition
> > of the CFJs you want, though, so that I can know whether to assign CFJs
> > to you.
> >
> > --
> > ais523
> > Arbitor
>

Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: CFJ 3509 Judgement (Dismissed, insufficient information)

[Gaelan Steele]

Idea: "offer" CFJs instead of assigning them. Have an Agency that lets us 
accept an offered CFJ, at which point it actually assigns. 

> On May 25, 2017, at 7:41 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 14:20 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote:
>> As for removing myself, I believe I am extremely appropriate for certain
>> flavors of CFJ. I wish there was a way I could be assigned mostly those
>> specifically.
> If there's a particular sort of CFJ you'd like to focus on, you can let
> me know, and I can try to bias the CFJ selection towards that. (The
> rules currently require me to balance CFJ judge selection over time,
> but with few judges having specific preferences, it's normally possible
> to give each judge the sort of CFJs they want via changing which CFJs
> are given to the judges who have no preference.)
> 
> It'd help if you could give a reasonably clear and precise definition
> of the CFJs you want, though, so that I can know whether to assign CFJs
> to you.
> 
> -- 
> ais523
> Arbitor

Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: CFJ 3509 Judgement (Dismissed, insufficient information)

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 14:45 +, Quazie wrote:
> Is it reasonable to request to you not be eligible for certain
> judicial subsets?
> 
> Could I ask to be ineligible for CFJs about Card based actions for
> example?
> - not that I want this, just asking about the concept.

I think that's a reasonable request. Judging some CFJs gives more judge
variety than judging none at all.

There do need to be limits in case of abuses (e.g. asking only to judge
about scams by a particular coconspirator), but that can be partially
dealt with by barring, and that sort of bad faith request would be
fairly obvious and thus ignorable.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: CFJ 3509 Judgement (Dismissed, insufficient information)

[Quazie]

Is it reasonable to request to you not be eligible for certain judicial
subsets?

Could I ask to be ineligible for CFJs about Card based actions for example?
- not that I want this, just asking about the concept.
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 07:42 Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 14:20 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote:
> > As for removing myself, I believe I am extremely appropriate for certain
> > flavors of CFJ. I wish there was a way I could be assigned mostly those
> > specifically.
> If there's a particular sort of CFJ you'd like to focus on, you can let
> me know, and I can try to bias the CFJ selection towards that. (The
> rules currently require me to balance CFJ judge selection over time,
> but with few judges having specific preferences, it's normally possible
> to give each judge the sort of CFJs they want via changing which CFJs
> are given to the judges who have no preference.)
>
> It'd help if you could give a reasonably clear and precise definition
> of the CFJs you want, though, so that I can know whether to assign CFJs
> to you.
>
> --
> ais523
> Arbitor
>