The judiciary - positions vacant

Claude Desmoulins · Post by **Claude Desmoulins** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:45 pm

The decision of the SC has , of course, made discussion on this particular point rather moot.

Ashcroft Burnham · Post by **Ashcroft Burnham** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:47 pm

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":2291y4tf]The decision of the SC has , of course, made discussion on this particular point rather moot.[/quote:2291y4tf]

We still need to decide how to rewrite the bill. I am about to post a thread on that.

Claude Desmoulins · Post by **Claude Desmoulins** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:50 pm

Several people have raised concerns about the complexity of the Judiciary Act. However, as Chili Carson's creation of an SL chamber of commerce suggests, the commercial community very much wants some sort of dispute resolution system systematic enough to gain their confidence so that they can consent to use it in a binding way.

If someone thinks that there's a simpler way to meet that dispute resolution need, they should propose it.

Ashcroft Burnham · Post by **Ashcroft Burnham** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:04 pm

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":20h84fqf]Several people have raised concerns about the complexity of the Judiciary Act.[/quote:20h84fqf]

That debate is in the past. We have decided against the validity of those concerns.

[quote:20h84fqf]However, as Chili Carson's creation of an SL chamber of commerce suggests, the commercial community very much wants some sort of dispute resolution system systematic enough to gain their confidence so that they can consent to use it in a binding way.[/quote:20h84fqf]

Precisely - the world is an unavoidably complicated place, and any system that is to have any hope of being just and predictable has to tame that complexity rather than ignore it.

[quote:20h84fqf]If someone thinks that there's a simpler way to meet that dispute resolution need, they should propose it.[/quote:20h84fqf]

Are you seriously inviting people to suggest a replacement for our entire, brand-new judiciary, that we have spent the past two months debating and designing?

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:06 pm

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":2nukkssk]Several people have raised concerns about the complexity of the Judiciary Act. However, as Chili Carson's creation of an SL chamber of commerce suggests, the commercial community very much wants some sort of dispute resolution system systematic enough to gain their confidence so that they can consent to use it in a binding way.

If someone thinks that there's a simpler way to meet that dispute resolution need, they should propose it.[/quote:2nukkssk]
I don't think there is a ready-made, simpler way to meet those needs (unless someone's been keeping one up their sleeve for a while) and so I would favour building an SL Chamber of Commerce on the sound proposal that Ashcroft has developed in collaboration and discussion with so many of us.

Claude Desmoulins · Post by **Claude Desmoulins** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:36 pm

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":3ndged8f]

Are you seriously inviting people to suggest a replacement for our entire, brand-new judiciary, that we have spent the past two months debating and designing?[/quote:3ndged8f]

At the moment I do not believe there is a simpler way to meet the goals the Judiciary Act meets. That said, I'm not in favor of complexity for its own sake and wouldn't mind being proven wrong.

In requesting alternate proposals, I am hoping that those who dislike the complexity of the current proposal will back their criticism with a constructive alternative, as I think it's not especially tenable to suggest that orderly dispute resolution isn't needed.

Ashcroft Burnham · Post by **Ashcroft Burnham** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:53 pm

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":nl23o92k]At the moment I do not believe there is a simpler way to meet the goals the Judiciary Act meets. That said, I'm not in favor of complexity for its own sake and wouldn't mind being proven wrong. [/quote:nl23o92k]

Ahh, I see I quite agree that complexity for its own sake, i.e. redundant complexity (real life legal systems have numerous [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_law:nl23o92k]examples[/url:nl23o92k] of that sort of thing) is very bad. However, as you suggest, there is no simpler way of acheiving the inherently complex task of regulating dispute resolution between the vastly complicated beings that are humans than that which I propose, or something equally complex.

[quote:nl23o92k]In requesting alternate proposals, I am hoping that those who dislike the complexity of the current proposal will back their criticism with a constructive alternative...[/quote:nl23o92k]

...which I do not believe that they will be able to do.

Ashcroft Burnham · Post by **Ashcroft Burnham** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:55 pm

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":38a89hxi]I don't think there is a ready-made, simpler way to meet those needs (unless someone's been keeping one up their sleeve for a while) and so I would favour building an SL Chamber of Commerce on the sound proposal that Ashcroft has developed in collaboration and discussion with so many of us.[/quote:38a89hxi]

Ahh, the SL Chamber of Commerce is seeking to acheive somethng a bit different to our judiciary - it is mainly about collaboration and education (with some degree of verification of general ethical standards of its members). The point is still being debated as to whether to offer any form of dispute resolution at all. What I have suggested is that, if the CoC members which to engage in binding dispute resolution, that they franchulate with us. If the CoC then wishes to provide ADR based on our laws, then so much the better: the PJSP could then procure its services in commercial disputes where the parties want it.

Tad Peckham · Post by **Tad Peckham** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:10 pm

back from three-weeks of vacation to discover i have a lot of reading to catch up on the forum! with that said, the debate in this thread is one that i hope to contribute to once i have had the chance to digest and think about the arguements put forth.

in the meantime, i am happy to see that a public judiciary scrutiny panel will be put in place. since i argued in favor of citizen involvement in the judiciary appointment process, i think it prudent that i consider running for election to this pannel. however, i want to watch this debate of panel members' political allegiance a bit longer before i make my final decision.

Tad