Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #217
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Tuesday, January 6 1998     Volume 02 : Number 217

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 10:36:50 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ/Appeal RFC

I don't that Alfvaen said that it should come at no cost. I'd favor
Alfvaen's suggestion - with some cost for the appeal, and an additional
cost to an additional appearl to the supreme court.

Niccolo Flychuck

 On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> > So what if the first appeal of a CFJ does not go to the Supreme Court,
> > but to another Judge?  A Judge not yet selected for that CFJ, if any;
> > not necessarily the Praetor, either.
> 
> My argument is based on the fact that the motivation, time,
> and economics of the initiator/appealer contrast greatly
> with the motivation, time, and economics of the judge, and
> the analysis of that economics (which, as some may know, is
> too lengthy to post here ;-), indicates a high cost of
> being wrong on appeal as the proper solution, IMHO.  So this
> solution will not fix that; there is still little cost to
> the appealer to keep hacking.  The justice system does even
> more work with another layer while the hacker enjoys a longer
> free ride.  Indeed, eir chances have just *increased* under
> this scheme of finding a favorable judge, with no risk.
> 
> Moreover, the high cost of a wrong appeal also provides more
> motivation for the first judge and the appealer to provide
> better reasoning, and I do not think this approach will 
> do that.
> 
> Hopefully, frivolous appeals will just go away,
> or the Court will agree with me and increase the penalties :)
> If neither of these things happens, I will start writing 
> treasure maps that exclude frivolous appealers :)
> 
> Malenkai
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 09:56:10 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ/Appeal RFC

Again, discussion topic rerouted to research.

On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:

> I'm all for this. One might like to make the second judge a Bronze Torch
> holder, or some other criteria.

Perhaps we should set up a District Court, from which one judge is chosen
at random to judge a first appeal?  The judges (who could be given the
title of Magistrate) are all Bronze Torch holders who are not Justices,
and who choose to be District Court members (if the DC is vacant, appeals
go straight to the SC as they do now).  Membership of the DC should be
voluntary.

Perhaps we should also consider judicial salaries if we are going to do
this - say a fixed A$10 per month for DCJs and A$25 for SCJs.

Yours,
Slakko
- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 08:03:07 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ/Appeal RFC

> I don't that Alfvaen said that it should come at no cost. I'd favor
> Alfvaen's suggestion - with some cost for the appeal, and an additional
> cost to an additional appearl to the supreme court.

Right, but a cost wasn't mentioned, and this thread was discussing costs
of appeals; this was presented as an alternative.  Also, don't confuse
the cost of appeal with the cost of being wrong.  I do not think 
there should be any cost for appealing a turkey of a verdict, just 
a big cost for hack appealing a correct verdict.

Malenkai

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 13:09:34 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ/Appeal RFC

On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> > I don't that Alfvaen said that it should come at no cost. I'd favor
> > Alfvaen's suggestion - with some cost for the appeal, and an additional
> > cost to an additional appearl to the supreme court.
> 
> Right, but a cost wasn't mentioned, and this thread was discussing costs
> of appeals; this was presented as an alternative.  Also, don't confuse
> the cost of appeal with the cost of being wrong.  I do not think 
> there should be any cost for appealing a turkey of a verdict, just 
> a big cost for hack appealing a correct verdict.

Perhaps a refundable deposit system: 
say 10 mumbles for the appeal, of which 8 are returned on the initial
verdict being overturned.
Also, combine this with the District Court / Supreme Court split to get
the following:

Appeal to district: 10 mumbles, 8 returned on overturning.
Appeal to supreme:  30 mumbles, 24 returned on overturning.

Then we can eliminate penalties to appealers, but keep penalties for
judges in if people feel it is appropriate.

- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 08:08:49 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ/Appeal RFC

> Perhaps we should set up a District Court, from which one judge is chosen
> at random to judge a first appeal?  The judges (who could be given the
> title of Magistrate) are all Bronze Torch holders who are not Justices,
> and who choose to be District Court members (if the DC is vacant, appeals
> go straight to the SC as they do now). 

This would put the first round judge even lower on the totem pole than
they are now, and IMO, make the problem worse.  It would make no game
sense to be a FRJ in this system.  

Moreover, rather that create more systemic work, which adding judicial
layers and making the justice system more complex will do, put more of
the burden on the appealer/initiator, where it belongs.  They are
initiating the work to the system, and have the most self-interest in
the outcome, they should shoulder its cost, and the current system with
high appeal penalties does that.

Malenkai

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 08:19:09 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ/Appeal RFC

> Appeal to supreme:  30 mumbles, 24 returned on overturning.

This is a better idea (especially if 1 mumble == 1 point :-).  I still
don't like the cost of paying to overturn a turkey, though.  That 
gives game incentive for the judge to deliver a turkey.

The up-front cost looks good, I suppose, because the old system
had a built-in up-front cost, even though it was applied on the
back end.  When the cost is actually paid makes little difference
to me.  I'd vote for this, as long as the cost were high enough.

10-15 points, though, is not high enough, IMO, if the FRJ is in it
for a 10 point risk.  Remember, the initiator/appealer has all the
time in the world to build a case, and has a vested interest; the judge
is selected at a random time, and it is a distraction for em.  Higher
appeal penalties give the FRJ more incentive (a positive incentive 
as opposed to a negative one, like docking the FRJ).  The enonomics
are different.  I'm not sure what values you were thinking for 'mumbles'.

Malenkai
thinking the old system was clean, simple, and fair :)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 13:31:43 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ/Appeal RFC

On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> > Appeal to supreme:  30 mumbles, 24 returned on overturning.
> 
> This is a better idea (especially if 1 mumble == 1 point :-).  I still
> don't like the cost of paying to overturn a turkey, though.  That 
> gives game incentive for the judge to deliver a turkey.

Not if we keep the ability to fine a judge for a turkey.  Provided that a
judge can be fined more for a turkey than a player will lose on it being
overturned, the judge has little incentive to deliver the turkey verdict
deliberately.

> The up-front cost looks good, I suppose, because the old system
> had a built-in up-front cost, even though it was applied on the
> back end.  When the cost is actually paid makes little difference
> to me.  I'd vote for this, as long as the cost were high enough.
> 
> 10-15 points, though, is not high enough, IMO, if the FRJ is in it
> for a 10 point risk.  Remember, the initiator/appealer has all the
> time in the world to build a case, and has a vested interest; the judge
> is selected at a random time, and it is a distraction for em.  Higher
> appeal penalties give the FRJ more incentive (a positive incentive 
> as opposed to a negative one, like docking the FRJ).  The enonomics
> are different.  I'm not sure what values you were thinking for 'mumbles'.

That's why I said mumble, so that people wouldn't argue about the values,
just about the principle at this stage.  If we agree the principle is
fine, then we can work out the values. 

Admittedly, right now I'd set 1 mumble equal to 2 points or A$10, however
you want to pay it.
- --
Duncan "simple, clean, fair - pick any 2" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 09:00:22 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ/Appeal RFC

> That's why I said mumble, so that people wouldn't argue about the values,
> just about the principle at this stage.  If we agree the principle is
> fine, then we can work out the values.

One final thought on the magnitude of these penalties.  The Gingham
Wearer attempted to retract the appeal of CFJ 505.  I looked at the
rules, and I do not believe that is possible.

Naturally, I started to write a proposal, and realised the retraction
penalty should be along the lines of the other retraction penalties,
1 or 2 points ;-)  Possibly *more* that the conditioned frivolous
penalty!  Think about it, should it cost *twice* as much to retract
a proposal or the appeal than to hack an appeal?

Consider the economic argument.

Malenkai

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 13:26:48 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ/Appeal RFC

> > I don't that Alfvaen said that it should come at no cost. I'd favor
> > Alfvaen's suggestion - with some cost for the appeal, and an additional
> > cost to an additional appearl to the supreme court.

> Right, but a cost wasn't mentioned, and this thread was discussing costs
> of appeals; this was presented as an alternative.  Also, don't confuse
> the cost of appeal with the cost of being wrong.  I do not think 
> there should be any cost for appealing a turkey of a verdict, just 
> a big cost for hack appealing a correct verdict.

Actually, there might be two overlapping problems here, related to numbers
of appeals.  Malenkai is concerned about CotC overwork if every verdict
gets appealed because there is insufficient penalty for doing so.  breadbox
expressed the point that the Supreme Court may get overworked if everything
gets appealed, as well.  My suggestion was meant more for the Supreme Court
problem.

Also, as the one who originally changed the 25-point penalty to "1-25
points", I originally proposed it because the Supreme Court had expressed
a desire once or twice to be able to assign a lower penalty, because the
appeal had been justified, but hadn't caused them to change the original
verdict.  The default is _still_ 25 points to the appealer, though, if the
appeal is not justified.  The 1-point default is for the original judge
on overturn.  So does anyone think that _lowering_ the default from 25
would fix anything?  I think that if you want a deterrent, the 25-point
default would work fine.  The Supreme Court is perfectly able to never
assign a penalty lower than 15 if they so desire, without it being
entrenched in the Rules.  Or would the Clerk of the Court prefer to be
able to assign penalties?

If the problem is just that nobody thinks that non-Supreme Court verdicts
are worth anything, then maybe we need more training for other judges.
Maybe it's because I submitted quite a few in the past few months, but I've
probably only judged three or four, and have also declined one or two that
I was too intimately involved in to be able to decide for myself.  And
that's in five months as a player.

Whatever happens with appeal penalties, I confess I really couldn't care
less about, but if we're going to free ourselves from dependence on the
Supreme Court, maybe we need to introduce non-Supreme Court appeals;
maybe if two random players can agree on the verdict, that'll be as
convincing as the Justices.  And then a Supreme Court appeal can be a
100-point penalty or something so nobody bothers them.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In The Other Room--Billy Idol:Rebel Yell
Current Book--David Foster Wallace:Infinite Jest
"Larger and more mauve."  --Scott Ellis

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 15:33:46 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2561

At 11:00pm -0500 1/5/98, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
>> Proposal 2561
>> More Intolerance
>> else...if (Henry Towsner)
>
>You should've submitted it as a Foolish proposal, which would give it
>double points...  Oh, well, too late now.
	*cough* I knew that.  I just didn't want to benefit unfairly
because Slakko and I didn't vote in time.  Right.

- --
Omnium pro iure, ius pro omnio

- -Henry Towsner, AKA else...if, The Fearless Alibi Posesser, Laefu, and Yilran

	<[email-masked]>

	"For there never was yey philosopher
	That could endure the toothache patiently"
	-William Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing, act 5, scene 1

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 22:23:48 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ/Appeal RFC

> One final thought on the magnitude of these penalties.  The Gingham
> Wearer attempted to retract the appeal of CFJ 505.  I looked at the
> rules, and I do not believe that is possible.
> 
> Naturally, I started to write a proposal, and realised the retraction
> penalty should be along the lines of the other retraction penalties,
> 1 or 2 points ;-)  Possibly *more* that the conditioned frivolous
> penalty!  Think about it, should it cost *twice* as much to retract
> a proposal or the appeal than to hack an appeal?

Interestingly enough, I also have submitted a proposal to make this
possible. I would like to request that the supreme court goes easy on me
for this stupid and frivolous appeal, due to my attempted appeal.

The Gingham Wearer.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 18:19:38 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ/Appeal RFC

> Malenkai is concerned about CotC overwork if every verdict
> gets appealed because there is insufficient penalty for doing so.

This could not be farther from the truth.  My concern is the lessening
of importance of the first round judge, the poor game theory economics,
and the reduced incentive for well thought out appeals.  My position
has absolutely nothing to do with CotC work.  Since I have wasted way
to much BW on this topic, this will prolly be my last reply in the
thread.

> So does anyone think that _lowering_ the default from 25
> would fix anything?

I do not think so.

> The Supreme Court is perfectly able to never assign a penalty lower 
> than 15 if they so desire, without it being entrenched in the Rules.

Since both Justices voted for proposal 2549, I hope this happens.
Having it codified in the rules, however, provides an eye opener for
newbies.  The way it is written now, I suppose people could assume
optimistically, and the deterrant factor would be neutered.

> Or would the Clerk of the Court prefer to be able to assign penalties?

Well, I'd love to :-)  I think a hard-coded penalty in the rules is
better, though.

> If the problem is just that nobody thinks that non-Supreme Court verdicts
> are worth anything, then maybe we need more training for other judges.

I'm not sure how training for other judges would work.  Bronze Torch
holders are appealed as frequently as other judges in this latest
round, so it seems anyway.  The issue is the economics of risk.

> Whatever happens with appeal penalties, I confess I really couldn't care
> less about, but if we're going to free ourselves from dependence on the
> Supreme Court, maybe we need to introduce non-Supreme Court appeals;
> maybe if two random players can agree on the verdict, that'll be as
> convincing as the Justices.  And then a Supreme Court appeal can be a
> 100-point penalty or something so nobody bothers them.

I guess my vote is to just go back to the old system.  No new layers, 
no putting the SC in a tier that is never used.  I know when I thought
I was right, I had no problem paying 25 points to be proven wrong.
If it was borderline, so what.  It made me think, though, is this really
worth appealing, and that is a good thing, IMO.  I guess I thought
the old system was more fun, and although the new system can be used
in the rare case when a verdict is borderline, I feel its cost in other
areas I've discussed previously does not balance against that benefit.

Malenkai

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 19:28:14 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ/Appeal RFC

> > If the problem is just that nobody thinks that non-Supreme Court verdicts
> > are worth anything, then maybe we need more training for other judges.
> 
> I'm not sure how training for other judges would work.  Bronze Torch
> holders are appealed as frequently as other judges in this latest
> round, so it seems anyway.  The issue is the economics of risk.

I don't really see how we could "train" judges.  Not in any way that would
make people liable to trust their judgements more than they do now.  

> 
> > Whatever happens with appeal penalties, I confess I really couldn't care
> > less about, but if we're going to free ourselves from dependence on the
> > Supreme Court, maybe we need to introduce non-Supreme Court appeals;
> > maybe if two random players can agree on the verdict, that'll be as
> > convincing as the Justices.  And then a Supreme Court appeal can be a
> > 100-point penalty or something so nobody bothers them.
> 
> I guess my vote is to just go back to the old system.  No new layers, 
> no putting the SC in a tier that is never used.  I know when I thought
> I was right, I had no problem paying 25 points to be proven wrong.
> If it was borderline, so what.  It made me think, though, is this really
> worth appealing, and that is a good thing, IMO.  I guess I thought
> the old system was more fun, and although the new system can be used
> in the rare case when a verdict is borderline, I feel its cost in other
> areas I've discussed previously does not balance against that benefit.
> 
> Malenkai

I am leaning more and more towards Malenkai's point of view on this.  I
don't know if we necessarily need to charge for EVERY appeal, but at the
very least the penalties for unsuccessful appeals need to be higher.  I
would very much like to find a way that discourages "frivilous" appeals,
appeals made simply because (with the current system) it doesn't hurt to
try, that doesn't penalize people who honestly think that a judgement is
wrong and should be overturned.

                                      - Vynd

[email-masked]

------------------------------

End of acka-research-digest V2 #217
***********************************