Proto revised slightly in response to Murphy's comments and recent
proposals.
proto-proposal: judicial reform
AI: 2
{{{
Whereas Agora has since 1996 laboured under an unnecessarily complex,
unclear, poorly-specified, bug-ridden judicial system, and wishes to
replace this with a system designed i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Given that an action is (1) required and (2) not explicitly prohibited,
>when would you consider it appropriate for that action to not be implicitly
>allowed?
I think you've jumped to a different situation here, one that doesn't
occur in our rules. You're suggesting that
Zefram wrote:
>> This CAN+SHALL pattern appears again later, suggesting that the
>> definition of "SHALL" should be amended to include "can, unless
>> explicitly prohibited by the rules".
>
> Nonono! That would defeat the point of MMI. CAN and SHALL are orthogonal
> concepts, and MMI resolves t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>MMI does not define "CAN" (except in the context of "CAN ONLY"),
>though of course the natural-language definition does apply.
I think it should define "CAN", as the antonym of "CANNOT". In the
absence of explicit definition, I intend it to be read that way, which
is pre
Zefram wrote:
> When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned,
> the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by
> announcement. Whenever this situation arises the CotC SHALL
> make such an assignment as soon as possible.
MMI does not define "C
The proto is now complete, with multiple-person judging of appeals and
revision of "The Standing Court". I've also changed a couple of details
from the first version. This version has the usual status for my protos:
I intend to propose this version or something very similar, subject to
modificati
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
Can anyone expound on why it would be necessary to have both
UNDECIDABLE and another category, whatever it ends up being called,
for when there's not enough information to determine if the question
is undecidable? If it's "not capable
of being accurately described as either
Can anyone expound on why it would be necessary to have both
UNDECIDABLE and another category, whatever it ends up being called,
for when there's not enough information to determine if the question
is undecidable? If it's "not capable
of being accurately described as either false or true, at the t
Zefram wrote:
How about "UNDETERMINED"?
Works for me.
Ed Murphy wrote:
> "Unproven" carries connotations of Godelian
>incompleteness,
That would be "unprovable".
>or perhaps "the preponderance of the evidence points
>to TRUE but it's not beyond a reasonable doubt".
One can prove a case in either direction. I i
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I would use "UNKNOWN" for this.
Mm. I think "UNPROVEN" is more descriptive. I'm influenced by the
"unproven" verdict in Scottish criminal law. Why do you prefer "UNKNOWN"?
Because it's neutral. "Unproven" carries connotations of Godelian
incompleteness, or
Zefram wrote:
> I think the interpretation of R101 was that its use of "invoke" has a
> meaning independent of the actual judicial rules, so it doesn't need to
> be changed due to that.
That was my (caller's) argument, but IIRC Judge Maud rejected it,
which is why it needs fixing. You could do i
Ed Murphy wrote:
>I would use "UNKNOWN" for this.
Mm. I think "UNPROVEN" is more descriptive. I'm influenced by the
"unproven" verdict in Scottish criminal law. Why do you prefer "UNKNOWN"?
>And "NOT A CRIME" for this.
That's the semantic, certainly, but I tried to make each of the
judgements
Zefram wrote:
* UNPROVEN, appropriate if the information available to the
judge is insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE,
and UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate.
I would use "UNKNOWN" for this.
* LAW ABIDING, appropriate if the alleged act was not
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Note to Zefram: Don't forget to amend R101(iii) to match the
>new "invoke" free terminology
I think the interpretation of R101 was that its use of "invoke" has a
meaning independent of the actual judicial rules, so it doesn't need to
be changed due to that. I have a note to
Zefram wrote:
> [Part I: new judicial rules]
Note to Zefram: Don't forget to amend R101(iii) to match the
new "invoke" free terminology (perhaps generalize to fix the problem
in CFJ-ohCOTCwebisdowngain and guarantee right to timely judgement
overall). -Goethe
Taral wrote:
>I'm not sure you've implemented the useful contents of these rules in
>your substitute.
Some of them are just not implemented yet. I plan to retain the essence
of "Linked Statements" and "Pragmatic Judicial Assignments" in the new
version of "The Standing Court". (I can do them muc
Roger Hicks wrote:
>It seems like linked CFJs could be replaced by a single CFJ with extra
>Judicial Questions under this new system. This would simplify the
>process considerably for related judgments.
Yes, that's what I originally planned for this system. But actually
my current thinking is tha
On 7/5/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2024 ("Linked Statements"),
2132 ("Excess CFJs"),
698 ("Always an Eligible Judge"),
2133 ("Pragmatic Judicial Assignments"),
408 ("Late Judgement"),
217 ("Judgements Must Accord with the Rules"),
1575 ("Stan
On 7/5/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm working on a complete revision of the judicial system. My proto is
not yet complete: there are a couple of rules still to do.
It seems like linked CFJs could be replaced by a single CFJ with extra
Judicial Questions under this new system. This w
I'm working on a complete revision of the judicial system. My proto is
not yet complete: there are a couple of rules still to do. Here is what
I have so far, for discussion of the concepts:
{{{
[--]
[Part I: new judicial rules]
[--]
Retitle rule
21 matches
Mail list logo
