Re: [s-d] [s-b] blah

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:10 PM, James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> consultation + ocularity is simpler than having the four types of judicial case we have now as any cleanup, punishment or other
> effect of a judgement can be included for any type of case with ocularities. As to Bn consent for ocularities, I think there should be
> some voting system for the judgement and ocularity together (so the ocularity only passes if the judgement passes) this could allow
> for a reassigning system for consultations and replace appeals, also allowing us to keep debating until we have majority agreement.

Under the consultation system this was the case, though an appellate
judge could uphold the judgement but not the oracularity.

This has two unfortunate effects, both small.

1. It's dumb to have to call something that's not inconsistent
inconsistent when you strongly dislike the oracularity, and I think
people at least sometimes hesitate to do so.

2. There was no consensus about what oracularities should be for
certain sorts of offenses.

Proto: Replace CFJs with a revival of the Consultation system, though
with our current bench-rotating mechanic or a simplified version
thereof in place.

1. The rules spell out "default" oracularities in a variety of
different situations, and judges SHOULD NOT stray far from the
defaults without good reason.

2. Appeals of Consultations and appeals of Oracularities are distinct,
though if a result is overturned obviously the Oracularity must be
thrown out also. Appealing a Consultation requires 2 Bn Consent, and
throws out the result and the Oracularity; the Oracle then CAN and
SHOULD appoint an appellate judge to write a replacement Oracularity,
which is subject to all the normal Oracularity-appealing rules.

3. Appealing an Oracularity merely requires 1/2 Bn Consent. If an
Oracularity is successfully appealed, then the Oracle appoints an
appellate judge to pick one of the following options:

  A. UPHOLD, keeping the same Oracularity in place
  B. ADJUST, writing a new Oracularity which SHALL be as close as
possible to the default Oracularity for the CFJ in question
  C. NULL, in which the new Oracularity is one that does not alter the
gamestate.

Appellate judges in this situation do not become Sitting by default.

4. All current crimes gain their current gremlin penalties as default
Oracularities; in other situations, disobeying a SHALL becomes a crime
with a set default Oracularity. NOVs are gone, you just Consult on
whether a crime occurred and it is subject to the above rules.

5. All precedent becomes non-binding in the general sense, though the
specific situation of a Pondered Consultation was correct and
judgements impacted it SHALL accept that specific situation as having
worked the way the prior Consultation says they did. That is, past
judgements are correct statements about the platonic gamestate but
merely SHOULD be accepted as guidance for how to resolve other
situations. This makes familiarity with a long stare decisis, a la
Agora, unnecessary.

6 (not a needed part of the overall reform but it'd be cool and
BINAly). There exist Protest Gnomes, which are neither trivially cheap
nor prohibitively costly to make. You can destroy a Protest Gnome when
an appeal is underway to add an extra vote one way or the other to the
appeals process. Possibly to any matter requiring n Bn consent, even.

 - teucer
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss