Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #232
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest    Wednesday, January 21 1998    Volume 02 : Number 232

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 18:11:05 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Appeals?

I suggested a way to reform appeals a few days ago.  I suggested turning
them into Hearings.  No one seems to have responded.  I'll RFC it sometime
unless someone can give me a good reason not to.

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "check out .Nomic" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - Senator - Swinger

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 13:32:43 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2595 accepted

- ----------
> From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Acka: Proposal 2595 accepted
> Date: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 1:30 PM
> 
> Results of Proposal 2595
> 
> 17/22 votes: Quorum achieved
> 16/16 YES votes: Proposal accepted
> 

Well, if that isn't evidence that we don't have an anti-voting problem, I
don't know what is!

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:12:35 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeals?

On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> 
> I suggested a way to reform appeals a few days ago.  I suggested turning
> them into Hearings.  No one seems to have responded.  I'll RFC it sometime
> unless someone can give me a good reason not to.
> 
> Yours,
> Slakko

Well, I've been following the various arguements about CFj appeal reform.
I think that most everyone has some good points when it comes to what is
wrong with the current system.  I just don't see how any of the other
,ethods thus far proposed would be an improvement.  Call me a pessimist I
guess...  Here is my thought, however.  Perhaps the Supreme Court can be
given the ability to reject appeals.  If they read over a CFJ that is
appealed to them and they think that the original judge's reasoning was
sound, then they reject the appeal and thats that.  The appealer still
gets a penalty, and could still appeal it again (God knows why).  It would
perhaps be a good idea to limit this to non-paradox win CFJs.

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 20:48:14 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeals?

> Well, I've been following the various arguements about CFj appeal reform.
> I think that most everyone has some good points when it comes to what is
> wrong with the current system.  I just don't see how any of the other
> ,ethods thus far proposed would be an improvement.  Call me a pessimist I
> guess...  Here is my thought, however.  Perhaps the Supreme Court can be
> given the ability to reject appeals.  If they read over a CFJ that is
> appealed to them and they think that the original judge's reasoning was
> sound, then they reject the appeal and thats that.  The appealer still
> gets a penalty, and could still appeal it again (God knows why).  It
would
> perhaps be a good idea to limit this to non-paradox win CFJs.

I don't see what use this would be either. At the moment the supreme court
can just uphold the initial verdict and state that they agree with the
initial comments. I agree that something needs doing but like everyone
else, am unsure what.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 22:52:41 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeals?

On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:

> > Well, I've been following the various arguements about CFj appeal reform.
> > I think that most everyone has some good points when it comes to what is
> > wrong with the current system.  I just don't see how any of the other
> > ,ethods thus far proposed would be an improvement.  Call me a pessimist I
> > guess...  Here is my thought, however.  Perhaps the Supreme Court can be
> > given the ability to reject appeals.  If they read over a CFJ that is
> > appealed to them and they think that the original judge's reasoning was
> > sound, then they reject the appeal and thats that.  The appealer still
> > gets a penalty, and could still appeal it again (God knows why).  It
> would
> > perhaps be a good idea to limit this to non-paradox win CFJs.
> 
> I don't see what use this would be either. At the moment the supreme court
> can just uphold the initial verdict and state that they agree with the
> initial comments. I agree that something needs doing but like everyone
> else, am unsure what.

Well, as far as I can see there are two major complaints with the system:
(Please note I am not necessarily a supporter of either of these)

(1) It's undemocratic - two people get to make the law.
(2) It's inefficient - the SC always seems to take longer than a week.

So people supposedly want something democratic and efficient.

I don't see why replacing Appeals with Appeal Hearings would fail either
of these criteria - everyone is entitled to a vote, and the results are
known within 3 days of the Appeal being announced.  People are entitled to
voice their opinion, and, if the change to the relevant rules gets
through, they are entitled to change their votes to cope with changing
sentiment about the right verdict.

If people are concerned about the reliability of such a method, just
remember that it only takes 60% of people who care to change the rules to
make the false true.  Having a hearing saves us all the trouble of writing
proposals to effectively override CFJs that we don't like.

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - Senator - Swinger

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 18:30:29 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeals?

> Well, as far as I can see there are two major complaints with the system:
> (Please note I am not necessarily a supporter of either of these)

> (1) It's undemocratic - two people get to make the law.
> (2) It's inefficient - the SC always seems to take longer than a week.

> So people supposedly want something democratic and efficient.

I don't think these are the complaints at all.  It's more like non-Supreme
Court verdicts are almost always appealed, i.e. are not considered
authoritative.  I'd say that one reason is that the Supreme Court _can_
take longer than a week(though I could be wrong, it may be mostly the
fact of having two people making the Judgement that slows it down).

> I don't see why replacing Appeals with Appeal Hearings would fail either
> of these criteria - everyone is entitled to a vote, and the results are
> known within 3 days of the Appeal being announced.  People are entitled to
> voice their opinion, and, if the change to the relevant rules gets
> through, they are entitled to change their votes to cope with changing
> sentiment about the right verdict.

And it's theoretically possible, in this case, to violate Rule 215,
"Judgement Must Accord With The Rules".  It's theoretically possible for
the majority of people to stack a Hearing on the verdict of any CFJ they
want to submit between them.  Efficiency is not the issue if the result
of the Judgement is suspect.

> If people are concerned about the reliability of such a method, just
> remember that it only takes 60% of people who care to change the rules to
> make the false true.  Having a hearing saves us all the trouble of writing
> proposals to effectively override CFJs that we don't like.

I just don't think that it will be legal.  I will strongly oppose any such
idea.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Tchaikovsky:Symphony No. 6 "Pathetique"
Current Book--Tanith Lee:Dark Dance
All questions asked by five watch experts amazed the judge.

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 18:53:22 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2608

> Okay, first of all: The standard .sig separator line is
> dash-dash-SPACE. There needs to be a trailing space after the dashes
> for the .sig to be automatically removed. If for some reason your
> mailer can't do this correctly, you can also put an "#end" after your
> proposal.

Now, in my years on the Net, I've never come across this fact, about the
trailing space.  I've been putting on my .sigs more or less by hand for a
long time now, and I always just set up dash-dash...  But then, since I
do them by hand(well, with a script I run by hand), I never get them
attached to messages I don't want them on.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Tchaikovsky:Symphony No. 6 "Pathetique"
Current Book--Tanith Lee:Dark Dance
Deceive boys with toys, but men with oaths.

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 19:45:39 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2618

> > Amend rule 413, "Clerk of the Court", to replace "The Clerk of the Court
> > shall be Acting Speaker when there is no Speaker" with "The Clerk of
> > the Court shall be Acting Speaker when there is no Speaker or Acting
> > Speaker".  {{[ Otherwise the CotC may have an impossible duty... ]}}

>   "What"?
>   This FIXES a problem?

Well, at the moment, the Clerk of the Courts can end up failing to
perform eir Duty to be Acting Speaker if there is no Speaker but
there is another Acting Speaker.

I can see what you mean, that potentially the Clerk of the Courts must
be Acting Speaker when there is no Acting Speaker, but I think it can
be interpreted correctly.  If not, then perhaps I'll retract and resubmit.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Tchaikovsky:Symphony No. 6 "Pathetique"
Current Book--Tanith Lee:Dark Dance
'My name is Inigo Montoya.  You stole my .sig quote.  Prepare to die.'

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #232
***********************************