A defense of complexity

[Claude Desmoulins]

In another thread, Aliasi posts that she once believed the DPU to be the party of less government and no longer so believes. That got me to thinking. So here's my take on why the DPU has supported policies that increase the complexity of our system.

1. From its beginning, the DPU has held as a core value that government is about problem solving. Coming in to the last election cycle, there was broad agreement that the issue facing us was expansion--How to make it happen in the short term and how to build a robust enough system to not get overrun by it in the long term.

This sort of burnout can be seen in the long delays on Platz redevelopment, CN expansion planning, and the Gwynethstr. relocation. This is not meant as a criticism of the people tasked with these, but instead as an observation that loose and informal systems weren't adequate to get the tasks done in a particularly timely way.

2. I believe that it is much easier to plan these systems (exec, judiciary, etc.) before we need them. Although no one is thrilled that the judiciary process is taking months, there aren't a backlog of disputes waiting for us to deal with them. I believe that whatever we come up with will be better than had we waited until we needed judiciary reform [i:11cymliq]yesterday[/i:11cymliq] and then put something together quickly to "plug the hole".

3. Much of the complexity present in the systems now being designed is there because of multiple layers of checks on power put in place to lessen the possibility of abuse. Our own history teaches us the importance of these. Yes, you can say there is always impeachment, but I would argue that it's an exceedingly blunt instrument and should be a last resort rather than a first one in dealing with possible tyrannical behavior.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

Very well-written

As I have often observed, many historical commentators have suggested that the success of the British Empire in the 19th century was due in part to the complexity and sophistication, and, in consequence, predictability, of its laws and legal system.

Much of the modern law of contract emanates from precedents set during the industrial revolution.

[Patroklus Murakami]

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":1igrkl07]Very well-written

As I have often observed, many historical commentators have suggested that the success of the British Empire in the 19th century was due in part to the complexity and sophistication, and, in consequence, predictability, of its laws and legal system.

Much of the modern law of contract emanates from precedents set during the industrial revolution.[/quote:1igrkl07]
Ash, it really doesn't help your case to refer positively to the British Empire in support of your case. Many would argue that it might have had more to do with the possession of substantially superior lethal force (and a ruthless willingness to use it) rather than any positive aspects of the legal system.

Oh, except for those colonies who, rather earlier than the 19th C were able to use their own arms to decide their own destiny

[Diderot Mirabeau]

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2p36ts4o]...due in part to the complexity and sophistication, and, in consequence, predictability, of its laws and legal system.[/quote:2p36ts4o]

By definition an increase in complexity does not equal an increase in predictability. It is in fact usually [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_ra ... y:2p36ts4o]the other way around[/url:2p36ts4o].

What constitutes a success in relation to foreign policy is very much relative to the measure you choose to apply in judgement. From a perspective of landgrabbing, territorialism and harvesting of wealth among a privileged few the British empire may have been considered a success. From a viewpoint of universal human rights and a people's right to self-determination the British empire was a dismal fiasco.

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":2p36ts4o]Oh, except for those colonies who, rather earlier than the 19th C were able to use their own arms to decide their own destiny[/quote:2p36ts4o]

This would be China I assume? In North America the tomahawk was not very successful in bringing self-determination to the native American people as far as I know.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":1yb4bicu]Ash, it really doesn't help your case to refer positively to the British Empire in support of your case. Many would argue that it might have had more to do with the possession of substantially superior lethal force (and a ruthless willingness to use it) rather than any positive aspects of the legal system.

Oh, except for those colonies who, rather earlier than the 19th C were able to use their own arms to decide their own destiny [/quote:1yb4bicu]

Perhaps you misunderstood me - I did not mean militery success, but economic success: the indistrial revolution itself. No doubt it was that economic success that, in turn, allowed for the military success. I do not condone colonising foreign nations by force, but, that aside, if a small island state such as the UK was in a position to acquire such a large empire, it must have been doing [i:1yb4bicu]something[/i:1yb4bicu] right.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":uagur1td]By definition an increase in complexity does not equal an increase in predictability. It is in fact usually [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_ra ... y:uagur1td]the other way around[/url:uagur1td].[/quote:uagur1td]

That appears to be an article about how people rank preferences, and does not contain any reasoning supporting the proposition that complexity decreases predictability.

However, the point has always been this: the things that a legal system has to do are inescapably, inherently vastly complicated. Part of the function of a legal system is to predict what disputes might arise in the future and resolve them by setting rules in advance. The sorts of dispute that might arise in the future are likely in many respects to be very complex. Therefore, in order for the system to be predictable, it has to anticipate and account for that complexity. That, in turn, means that the sources of law will be complex themselves. Conversely, it also means that the application of the law in practice is less complex (not necessarily less intellectually challenging) because the rules in question cover more eventualities, and do so more precisely. Additional precision entails additional detail, which means that the [i:uagur1td]sources[/i:uagur1td] of law are more complex, but the resolution of vagueness (there will always be some vagueness, but it can vary greatly in degree) is also a vastly complex process, and is one that is far harder to predict.

[quote:uagur1td]What constitutes a success in relation to foreign policy is very much relative to the measure you choose to apply in judgement. From a perspective of landgrabbing, territorialism and harvesting of wealth among a privileged few the British empire may have been considered a success. From a viewpoint of universal human rights and a people's right to self-determination the British empire was a dismal fiasco.[/quote:uagur1td]

Yes, of course: I never suggested that the British were [i:uagur1td]right[/i:uagur1td] to invade other people's land and subjugate them. The point was merely that the fact that it was, economically, in a position to do so was in part, some commentators suggest, due to the predictability and sophistication of its laws and legal system. The industrial revolution was, after all, born in England.

[Diderot Mirabeau]

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":opd9iqq6]That appears to be an article about how people rank preferences, and does not contain any reasoning supporting the proposition that complexity decreases predictability.[/quote:opd9iqq6]

To interpret the work of Nobel-prize winning economist and polymat Herbert Simon in such a manner as described in the above seems to me to be conveniently misguided in relation to the maintenance of one's own argument however flawed it may be.

For the benefit of those perhaps who were taught in a tradition to argue their point beyond the ability to recognise alternative perspectives founded on other paradigmatical approaches to knowledge of our world let me explain briefly, why Herbert Simon's work on the bounded rationality of (economic) agents is relevant in refuting your claim that complexity increases transparency.

Quoting from the article:
[quote:opd9iqq6]"ounded rationality suggests that economic agents employ the use of heuristics to make decisions rather than a strict rigid rule of optimization. They do this because of the complexity of the situation, and the inability to process and compute all alternatives. Deliberation costs might be high and there are often other economic activities where similar decision making is required.[/quote:opd9iqq6]

This seems to me to be a highly accurate representation of how an entrepreneur will relate to the coming judicial system of Neufreistadt: Already busy making decisions in areas such as marketing, product development, staffing and distribution it is altogether unlikely that the entrepreneur will be able to relate to the judiciary in the complex form in which it presently stands by any other means than through trusted proxies, who can in a matter of two minutes explain the workings and benefits of the system.

Having to rely on middlemen to explain the impact of a system on one's own operations is not as transparent as being able to assess the consequences by oneself. Middlemen will be limited in their understanding of your situation and needs in part because of the limits of empathy but also because you may not for competitive reasons want to disclose all the details of your operation to a middleman, which will in turn prevent him or her from advising you to the full extent of your interests. With regard to transparency there is the added problem that your reliance on being able to predict the workings of the system change from being dependent only on your own cognitive abilities to depending on some diffuse meta-characteristic such as "trust" or "reputation", which [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barings_Bank:opd9iqq6]as history shows us[/url:opd9iqq6] may very well be built on sand.

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":opd9iqq6]However, the point has always been this: the things that a legal system has to do are inescapably, inherently vastly complicated. Part of the function of a legal system is to predict what disputes might arise in the future and resolve them by setting rules in advance. The sorts of dispute that might arise in the future are likely in many respects to be very complex. Therefore, in order for the system to be predictable, it has to anticipate and account for that complexity. That, in turn, means that the sources of law will be complex themselves. Conversely, it also means that the application of the law in practice is less complex (not necessarily less intellectually challenging) because the rules in question cover more eventualities, and do so more precisely. Additional precision entails additional detail, which means that the [i:opd9iqq6]sources[/i:opd9iqq6] of law are more complex, but the resolution of vagueness (there will always be some vagueness, but it can vary greatly in degree) is also a vastly complex process, and is one that is far harder to predict.[/quote:opd9iqq6]

I agree with your argument in this extended form. It appears to me there is a difference between the mechanism of the manner in which thoroughness (i.e. detail) eliminates vagueness and the claim that complexity - an altogether different thing - provides transparency.

However, I argue that in devising a legal system one can to some extent in advance control the complexity of a judicial system by limiting for example the domain of its jurisdiction.

Personally, it is my belief that Neufreistadt is a political experiment that enables us to question and rethink what has been taken for granted in the institutions of the RL world. It is my impression that the judiciary bill as it presently stands does not embody much of that experimentation but is rather more conceived as a barebones but proud replica of a conventional legal system.

[Claude Desmoulins]

[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":g5kj8g1b]
This seems to me to be a highly accurate representation of how an entrepreneur will relate to the coming judicial system of Neufreistadt: Already busy making decisions in areas such as marketing, product development, staffing and distribution it is altogether unlikely that the entrepreneur will be able to relate to the judiciary in the complex form in which it presently stands by any other means than through trusted proxies, who can in a matter of two minutes explain the workings and benefits of the system.

Having to rely on middlemen to explain the impact of a system on one's own operations is not as transparent as being able to assess the consequences by oneself. Middlemen will be limited in their understanding of your situation and needs in part because of the limits of empathy but also because you may not for competitive reasons want to disclose all the details of your operation to a middleman, which will in turn prevent him or her from advising you to the full extent of your interests. With regard to transparency there is the added problem that your reliance on being able to predict the workings of the system change from being dependent only on your own cognitive abilities to depending on some diffuse meta-characteristic such as "trust" or "reputation", which [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barings_Bank:g5kj8g1b]as history shows us[/url:g5kj8g1b] may very well be built on sand.

...
Personally, it is my belief that Neufreistadt is a political experiment that enables us to question and rethink what has been taken for granted in the institutions of the RL world. It is my impression that the judiciary bill as it presently stands does not embody much of that experimentation but is rather more conceived as a barebones but proud replica of a conventional legal system.[/quote:g5kj8g1b]

Diderot,

I appreciate your points here. However, one very important fact remains. No body who has criticized the current judiciary proposal for its complexity has, to my knowledge anyway, offered a counter-proposal. If one opposes what's currently on the table I see essentially two possible grounds for doing so:

1) One may argue that because of our small size or some other circumstance, we don't need a defined judiciary. I personally find this a hard argument to make, given the confusion surrounding previous legal actions.

2) One may argue, as I believe you do, to an extent, that having a legal system is desirable, but the model under consideration is too [i:g5kj8g1b]something [/i:g5kj8g1b](in this case complex). If you do that, the logical next step is to say, "We should do X instead."

Several people have said that they view the 5-0 votes in the RA as evidence that this particular judiciary model is an unstoppable freight train. I disagree. I voted for it because I believe it's better than what we have. If we can get its benefits (independent judiciary with some checks, dispute resolution system) with a less complex model, I would support that. I am waiting for someone to propose one.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":2xdmyusn]I agree with your argument in this extended form. It appears to me there is a difference between the mechanism of the manner in which thoroughness (i.e. detail) eliminates vagueness and the claim that complexity - an altogether different thing - provides transparency.[/quote:2xdmyusn]

Our disagreement seems to have stemmed from a confusion surrounding the use of the word "complexity". The mistake that people often make is to confuse the complexity of the [i:2xdmyusn]sources[/i:2xdmyusn] of the law, or of the legal rules, or of legal institutions, with the complexity of executing or predicting the execution of the [i:2xdmyusn]practical operation[/i:2xdmyusn] of the law. My argument has always been that an increase in the former is necessary for a reduction in the latter, and that the latter kind of complexity is far more undesirable than the former.

[quote:2xdmyusn]However, I argue that in devising a legal system one can to some extent in advance control the complexity of a judicial system by limiting for example the domain of its jurisdiction.[/quote:2xdmyusn]

It is certainly true that law in SecondLife will always be vastly simpler (in the sense that there will be far less of it, and therefore far fewer relationships between different parts of it) than law in real life because there are far, far fewer things to have laws about (consider personal injury and pollution as two out of a vast number of examples).

[quote:2xdmyusn]Personally, it is my belief that Neufreistadt is a political experiment that enables us to question and rethink what has been taken for granted in the institutions of the RL world. It is my impression that the judiciary bill as it presently stands does not embody much of that experimentation but is rather more conceived as a barebones but proud replica of a conventional legal system.[/quote:2xdmyusn]

This is all rather vague: what, precisely, do you think ought to be re-thought in SecondLife as to the institutions of real life governments and, in respect of each re-thought, why does it need re-thinking, what should the new thought be, and why should it be that, rather than anything else?

[Diderot Mirabeau]

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":q5fwv3zn]I appreciate your points here. However, one very important fact remains. No body who has criticized the current judiciary proposal for its complexity has, to my knowledge anyway, offered a counter-proposal. [/quote:q5fwv3zn]

Claude, first of all I want to ask you for forgiveness for sidetracking a principled discussion on the merit of complexity in government to address the substance of a bill, which has already been discussed and argued by scores of qualified people and been processed and deliberated upon by the RA at length. As others have argued there has been ample time to contribute to the discussion on the merits and de-merits of this bill and that one may have been turned off by the lengthiness of many contributions in the discussion of the legislation or have suffered/enjoyed RL personal circumstances preventing one from participating as much, as one would have liked are not sufficient arguments for complaining about the wording at this stage of the legislative agenda.

I agree with the sentiment that if citizens at this stage feel that the bill is not appropriate for the needs of our community they should organise politically to address this perceived impropriety in relation to the next election. This should be considered a great opportunity to rediscover what our democracy is all about!

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":q5fwv3zn]Several people have said that they view the 5-0 votes in the RA as evidence that this particular judiciary model is an unstoppable freight train. I disagree. I voted for it because I believe it's better than what we have. If we can get its benefits (independent judiciary with some checks, dispute resolution system) with a less complex model, I would support that. I am waiting for someone to propose one.[/quote:q5fwv3zn]

Personally, I have [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 4:q5fwv3zn]already advocated[/url:q5fwv3zn] a minimalist approach to the design of a judiciary - meaning that such an institution should have as low an overhead as possible relative to the citizenry and government functions that support it. The reasoning behind this is that I believe most of us here to be first and foremost members of the community in order to channel our creativity and our pursuit of fun and socialising into a community gravitating around a constructive agenda and that only a tiny minority are actually interested in spending any longer amount of time voluntarily or involuntarily occupied arbitrating conflicts of interests.

Concretely, I believe that we could do much by reducing complexity in the current proposal by a few changes most of which entail [b:q5fwv3zn]maximising the degree of control a citizen has on the extent of his exposure to the jurisdiction of our legal system - effectively making it his or her own choice if he desires to be involved[/b:q5fwv3zn]. This would be unlike the situation with the present legislation where anyone contemplating becoming a citizen has to struggle with the quite hazardous risk of being summoned to appear before the court for an unspecified duration either as a juror or at the behest of John Random Citizen, who has conceived in his mind the absurd notion that he has been wronged by a particular behaviour of his fellow citizen.

In my view a few amendments to the current legislation on the judiciary would reduce immensely the complexity of the picture of risks that a prospective entrepreneur would have to face in choosing to set up his operations in Neufreistadt: With these proposed changes he goes from having to face the possibility of lawsuits from 40 different citizens each with their own incalcuable motivations and grievances to only having to take into account the calculated risks he accepts himself by entering into written agreement with one or more actors in extension of his business strategy.

In short it is my recommendation on the above grounds that we limit the judiciary to have the following jurisdictional competence:

(1) Arbitrating in disputes over written contracts freely entered into and notarised by citizens or companies of Neufreistadt

(2) Reviewing the judgement of a government entity in making a decision affecting a citizen or non-citizen (i.e. covenant violations, banishment of griefers) on the questions of fact, legal interpretation, culpability and proportionality of sanction/measure.

And that we furthermore let the judiciary consist only of professional judges (i.e. no jury service) the salarying of which should be a seperate issue under discussion. I cannot see the certain knowledge that justifies the current sentiment that a monthly salary of 1,000L$ is sufficient to maintain the indepence and impartiality of judges and find it difficult to see how it could be instrumental in attracting a body of qualified candidates motivated purely by their desire to help our society through the impartial administration of law.

So to summarise:
1) Abolish the possibility of forcing citizens to become jurors

2) Limit the jurisdiction of the court to only arbitrate in disputes voluntarily entered into and to react upon appeals from affected citizens to review the justification of decisions/sanctions by government bodies.

3) Leave issues of griefing between persons to the Linden Abuse system. The Neufreistadt judiciary system is powerless to deal with it in any case since anyone may register a free alt to evade the consequences of any sanctions that a court may impose and we would just be wasting the time of our skilled judges.

P. S.: I have submitted what I consider to be the necessary alterations to the present judiciary bill in a posting on the legislative discussion group. I cannot guarantee that this posting encompasses all the necessary alterations as the monolithic form of the present bill makes it rather difficult for anyone but the most dedicated or those with a professionally trained eye to review every detail of the entire text for compatibility.

[Ranma Tardis]

[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":3v1cdkak] So to summarise:
1) Abolish the possibility of forcing citizens to become jurors [/quote:3v1cdkak]

I am not sure if this can be enforced . With our citizens living in so many different timezones and lifestyles..........

[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":3v1cdkak] 2) Limit the jurisdiction of the court to only arbitrate in disputes voluntarily entered into and to react upon appeals from affected citizens to review the justification of decisions/sanctions by government bodies. [/quote:3v1cdkak]

My point of view is that all citizens consent to life under the laws of the CDS when buying land. It is part of the social contract. If we allow citizens to pick and chose what laws they will abide by it will result in chaos. Doing this makes owning land here no better than the mainland.

[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":3v1cdkak] 3) Leave issues of griefing between persons to the Linden Abuse system. The Neufreistadt judiciary system is powerless to deal with it in any case since anyone may register a free alt to evade the consequences of any sanctions that a court may impose and we would just be wasting the time of our skilled judges. [/quote:3v1cdkak]

So Sorry the Linden Abuse Reporting is broken. The ability to live in a more secure enviroment is why a lot of citizens moved here. About Alts the best way to deal with them is to have the griefer defendants gather at the same time for processing.

[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":3v1cdkak] P. S.: I have submitted what I consider to be the necessary alterations to the present judiciary bill in a posting on the legislative discussion group. I cannot guarantee that this posting encompasses all the necessary alterations as the monolithic form of the present bill makes it rather difficult for anyone but the most dedicated or those with a professionally trained eye to review every detail of the entire text for compatibility. [/quote:3v1cdkak]

I will have to read it, the more I look at Ashcroft Sans first draft the more I like it. Perhaps I was mistaken about it.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":38urhlb9]Personally, I have [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 4:38urhlb9]already advocated[/url:38urhlb9] a minimalist approach to the design of a judiciary - meaning that such an institution should have as low an overhead as possible relative to the citizenry and government functions that support it. The reasoning behind this is that I believe most of us here to be first and foremost members of the community in order to channel our creativity and our pursuit of fun and socialising into a community gravitating around a constructive agenda and that only a tiny minority are actually interested in spending any longer amount of time voluntarily or involuntarily occupied arbitrating conflicts of interests.

Concretely, I believe that we could do much by reducing complexity in the current proposal by a few changes most of which entail [b:38urhlb9]maximising the degree of control a citizen has on the extent of his exposure to the jurisdiction of our legal system - effectively making it his or her own choice if he desires to be involved[/b:38urhlb9]. This would be unlike the situation with the present legislation where anyone contemplating becoming a citizen has to struggle with the quite hazardous risk of being summoned to appear before the court for an unspecified duration either as a juror or at the behest of John Random Citizen, who has conceived in his mind the absurd notion that he has been wronged by a particular behaviour of his fellow citizen.

In my view a few amendments to the current legislation on the judiciary would reduce immensely the complexity of the picture of risks that a prospective entrepreneur would have to face in choosing to set up his operations in Neufreistadt: With these proposed changes he goes from having to face the possibility of lawsuits from 40 different citizens each with their own incalcuable motivations and grievances to only having to take into account the calculated risks he accepts himself by entering into written agreement with one or more actors in extension of his business strategy.

In short it is my recommendation on the above grounds that we limit the judiciary to have the following jurisdictional competence:

(1) Arbitrating in disputes over written contracts freely entered into and notarised by citizens or companies of Neufreistadt

(2) Reviewing the judgement of a government entity in making a decision affecting a citizen or non-citizen (i.e. covenant violations, banishment of griefers) on the questions of fact, legal interpretation, culpability and proportionality of sanction/measure.

And that we furthermore let the judiciary consist only of professional judges (i.e. no jury service) the salarying of which should be a seperate issue under discussion. I cannot see the certain knowledge that justifies the current sentiment that a monthly salary of 1,000L$ is sufficient to maintain the indepence and impartiality of judges and find it difficult to see how it could be instrumental in attracting a body of qualified candidates motivated purely by their desire to help our society through the impartial administration of law.

So to summarise:
1) Abolish the possibility of forcing citizens to become jurors

2) Limit the jurisdiction of the court to only arbitrate in disputes voluntarily entered into and to react upon appeals from affected citizens to review the justification of decisions/sanctions by government bodies.

3) Leave issues of griefing between persons to the Linden Abuse system. The Neufreistadt judiciary system is powerless to deal with it in any case since anyone may register a free alt to evade the consequences of any sanctions that a court may impose and we would just be wasting the time of our skilled judges.

P. S.: I have submitted what I consider to be the necessary alterations to the present judiciary bill in a posting on the legislative discussion group. I cannot guarantee that this posting encompasses all the necessary alterations as the monolithic form of the present bill makes it rather difficult for anyone but the most dedicated or those with a professionally trained eye to review every detail of the entire text for compatibility.[/quote:38urhlb9]

Diderot, I have already addressed at length, as long ago as [b:38urhlb9]the 15th of August[/b:38urhlb9] your original suggestions in relation to this matter, and explained carefully and in detail in relation to each one why what you suggest was not well founded, and why it would be woefully flawed to limit the jurisdiction of the courts in the way that you propose. You have in your post above, not even attempted to respond to my response, but merely re-stated your original ideas. Nearly two months of careful and detailed debate and deliberation of the judiciary have passed since your original suggestions, which you never defended, and it is wholly inappropriate now to introduce, after the Representative Assembly has [i:38urhlb9]twice[/i:38urhlb9] unanimously voted for the judiciary with the wider powers that I propose (having been resubmitted by the Scientific Council both times on wholly unrelated grounds relating to the Public Judiciary Scrutiny Panel), a suggestion that the judiciary be instituted in a vastly different way than that which has been proposed, and on a basis entirely at odds with the basis upon which everyone has been proceeding until now. This issue does not even deserve consideration at all unless and until you can respond to my original response to your oiginal post in detail and with care that is commensurate to the detail and care that I put into my response in the first place. Your intervention at this late stage in the debate, I have to say, is not at all helpful.

[Diderot Mirabeau]

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2rayd3vz]The main reson that I put trial by jury into my proposals was that it was already in the constitution; I rather assumed for that reason that the practicalities had already been considered.[/quote:2rayd3vz]

Could you please explain to me the logical consistency between your argument that you put trial by jury into your proposal because it was already in the constitution and the fact that your proposal ends up changing more in the constitution than any bill before it? It seems there must be other criteria beyond what is already in the constitution that determines what goes in your bill. Ah here the actual argument begins ...

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2rayd3vz]That was not the only reason, however: trial by jury is, generally, a fairer way of administering justice than trial by judge alone. Although there will inevitably be some practical problems with trial by jury (just as there are in real life), it is not clear to me at this stage just how great those problems are or will be: after all, nobody has ever, as far as I am aware, tried to conduct a trial by jury in SecondLife.

It would be helpful to have input from others, perhaps those more experienced than I in planning events in SecondLife, on the question of the practicality of jury service[/quote:2rayd3vz]

It seems strange to me that you would discount in advance my opinion as possibly coming from one experienced in planning events in Second Life as you seem to do summarily in the above.

We have citizens living in a span of time zones from GMT-8 to GMT+1 or further away if I'm not mistaken. I have had to sit in on SC meetings with 3 participants that had to be conducted at 3AM CET because of the differing time zones and schedules of the participants. I have furthermore experienced almost a full season of RA meetings with just around half of the membership in attendance because of RL scheduling and time zone problems. Do you not think I have experience with the burdersome logistics of scheduling meetings with an international participant body? Do you not further think that you will experience some difficulty in getting up to 7 citizens of this community plus a judge, prosecutor and defense attorney and an unspecified number of marshalls of the peace to be able to turn up at the same time to conduct a court meeting beyond a duration of one hour in order to assess the case of John Random Griefer?

Do you not think your problems will be multiplied exponentially when the next case has to be scheduled since John Random Griefer decided to create four alts over the course of a few weeks each of which has to be dealt with on a seperate basis and with a new subset of community members whose calendars need to be scheduled? Do I really need to explain it down to this level of detail for you to be able to accept my argument to be even valid? If so then the discussion becomes rapidly too much trouble to be worth it to be frank.

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2rayd3vz]If, all that taken into account, it is still not realistically practical to hold trials by jury, then so be it. If, however, albeit with some effort, the problems can largely be managed effectively, then it is my view that the benefits of trial by jury would make that effort worthwhile. If it is not clear either way, it is worth experimenting with trial by jury, and then changing the position if it is clear that the system is untenable. [/quote:2rayd3vz]

Is what you are proposing to start out by giving the defendant a high guarantee of a fair trial only to subsequently compromise on this position in the case that it turns out to be too troublesome? In other words those who are fortunate enough to be put on trial first will likely experience a more fair outcome of their trial than those, who are tried subsequently - when the trial by jury system is found out to be too cumbersome logistically to maintain? I am not sure this kind of approach to justice would go down well with anyone subscribing to ideals of fair trials and human rights.

[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":2rayd3vz]2) Financial compensation to the professional actors in the court system is unlikely to serve as sufficient incentive to retain these persons in so far as it does not correspond to RL levels of compensation: I.e. at least 5 - 10,000 L$ per hour served. Alternatively, we should devise a system that keeps at a low level the volume of cases delegated to the individual judge. Possibly each case could be assessed before being handed to a judge for how long it is expected to last and for the degree of complexity in relation to Neufreistadt legislation. Individual judges could indicate the level of workload they are willing / able to contribute on a monthly basis and the chief administrator of the judiciary would then delegate cases on a random basis in accordance with these indications. The ideal model for this should be not unlike how tasks are delegated in the development of open source software.[/quote:2rayd3vz]

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2rayd3vz]I am not entirely sure that I follow the economic reasoning here: I never suggested that financial compensation would, in the foreseeable future, be the only incentive for legal professionals in our jurisdiction to work; just like everyone else in the community, the builders, the planners, the government officials and the like, they would do it mainly for the joy of doing it itself. However, some financial reward, not enough to earn anything near a real-word living, but maybe a few hundred L$ per month, enough, for example, to go towards land rent and buy some SecondLife furniture, clothes, gestures and so forth now and again, would provide extra incentive which, along with the non-financial incentives, should be sufficient in combination even if each were not sufficient on their own. Above all, a salary, even a relatively small one, comes with it a sense of responsibility not present in the truly voluntary worker that can help to ensure continuity. Furthermore, the salary should be in approximate proportion to the GDP of the CDS; since the judiciary is a potentially important element in the economic success of our community, not only is it fair that they receive some small portion thereof, but such people would be incentivised to practise in the expectation that, if the CDS would become greatly more financially successful, their salaries might increase, too. Furthermore, in my view it would be a selling point for the Confederation to potential citizens and/or customers thereof if we could claim that we have a truly professional judiciary: we would, after all, thereby be unique in that aspect in all of SecondLife: the world's first professional judiciary for a virtual world. [/quote:2rayd3vz]

None of these rantings actually address my valid proposition that a system be devised by which the caseload is being delegated to judges on the basis of an assessment of the extent to which the judge is internally motivated rather than driven by financial motives. You have furthermore subsequently ignored this proposal completely without ever giving any kind of valid reason why it is not worthy of your consideration.

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2rayd3vz]The whole point of having a private community is that we can ban those who behave improperly either within it or anywhere towards other members of it. In the interests of justice, and of fostering confidence in non-citizens that they will be treated justly by us, we declare that no person may be banished without order of the court, and the opportunity to have a trial. From that flows the principle that should form a part of our law that our law runs in parallell to any other legal system or system of enforcement, and that our courts ignore other such codes (save to the extent that they must not themselves act in violation of any duly applicable real-world law or SecondLife term of service), and decide the issues based only on the law of the Confederation.[/quote:2rayd3vz]

And how is it exactly that you propose to do anything effective with your judiciary in relation to the problem of John Random Griefer creating multiple anonymous alts and using them sequentially to cause grief to our population? What is it exactly that you propose to do through judicial sanction that will prevent effectively the person behind the avatar to strike again?

Assuming that the answer is nothing - most likely shrouded in an extensive sequence of arguments not particularly relevant to the direct question asked of you - my further question would be why is it worth wasting the time and possibly even wages of the judiciary, marshalls of the peace, four person juries and possibly even a prosecutor to coordinate their calendars to schedule a court meeting to preside over the upkeep of the banishment of an avatar, who will likely never be used again?

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2rayd3vz]For those reasons, it most certainly is not a waste of judicial time dealing with abuse cases (whether petty or not), since our ability both to [b:2rayd3vz]punish effectively[/b:2rayd3vz] the perpetrators thereof by our own means, and our unwaivering commitment to treat alleged such perpetrators fairly are both essential cornerstones of our emerging system of justice upon which our unique and excellent community is founded. [/quote:2rayd3vz] (emphasis added)

You use the words but you fail to state how you intend to translate them into action.

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2rayd3vz]
I have already given reasons above why the banishment of non-citizens must have judicial involvement; it is, after all, a great potential selling point of our community that people who visit it, whether citizens or not, will not be banished without the right to a hearing. [/quote:2rayd3vz]

I fail to see how people's decision to visit a sim is affected significantly by the question of whether they will be banished or not without the right to a hearing. Show me one sim in the universe of SL that has experienced increased visits due to visitors being guaranteed a hearing before being banned?

Your argument becomes even more contrived when one takes into account that my proposal does not even rob earnest visitors, who consider themselves wrongfully banished of their rightful hearing. All they would need to do is to lodge their appeal with the proper authority.

I cannot help but think that if the rest of your judiciary bill is based on argumentation as tenacious yet unfounded as the above then I hope the constitution will help us all.

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2rayd3vz]Are not robes and heraldry perfectly in tune with the medieval European surroundings of Neufreistadt?[/quote:2rayd3vz]

That may or may not be the case but I thought we were devising a judiciary for the CDS, which is soon to encompass a Roman themed sim. Do you propose that the coffers of the CDS should pay 2,700L$ because a particular individual thinks it would be nice to dress everyone up as they do in a British court.

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2rayd3vz]Ultimately, however, although we must of course be careful not to be extravagant and impractical with the designs for our judiciary, what we are planning and seeking to acheive - a professional, independent judiciary for a democratically-governed community in an entirely virtual world - is something that nobody in the world has ever done before. [/quote:2rayd3vz]

I could not agree with you more on the above. I hope you still remember them.

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2rayd3vz]We are the pioneers of something truly unique and ground-breaking, and we should not, in the name of over-cautiousness, dilute what I hope will one day become renowned the oldest and finest virtual legal system in the world. To be timid rather than bold now is something that we may very well regret in years to come.[/quote:2rayd3vz]

That is completely wrong. Nothing will be diluted by rolling out justice one step at a time and trying it in practice rather than by building an elaborate tower of ivory founded on the sand constituted by long, theoretical debates full of assumptions that may appear like facts in the eyes of the writer.

[Diderot Mirabeau]

[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":d2qc9ody] 2) Limit the jurisdiction of the court to only arbitrate in disputes voluntarily entered into and to react upon appeals from affected citizens to review the justification of decisions/sanctions by government bodies. [/quote:d2qc9ody]

[quote="Ranma Tardis":d2qc9ody]My point of view is that all citizens consent to life under the laws of the CDS when buying land. It is part of the social contract. If we allow citizens to pick and chose what laws they will abide by it will result in chaos. Doing this makes owning land here no better than the mainland.[/quote:d2qc9ody]

I am not arguing for pick and choose buffet legislation. What I am arguing for is that our judiciary should only be empowered to intervene in cases where there is prior written agreement by two parties that is allegedly violated by one party. The rationale behind this is not to subject citizens to the liability of an unknown number of lawsuits in which they have to appear before the court at a time more likely governed by the priorities of the jury and judge than by the defendant. The judiciary should furthermore stand at the disposition of any citizen, who feels wronged by a government decision affecting him or her personally. Limiting the judiciary to be used in this fashion reduces significantly the potential of abusing the judiciary to cause unnecessary division and drown people in bureaucracy.

[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":d2qc9ody] 3) Leave issues of griefing between persons to the Linden Abuse system. The Neufreistadt judiciary system is powerless to deal with it in any case since anyone may register a free alt to evade the consequences of any sanctions that a court may impose and we would just be wasting the time of our skilled judges. [/quote:d2qc9ody]

[quote="Ranma Tardis":d2qc9ody]So Sorry the Linden Abuse Reporting is broken. The ability to live in a more secure enviroment is why a lot of citizens moved here. About Alts the best way to deal with them is to have the griefer defendants gather at the same time for processing. [/quote:d2qc9ody]

I am sorry but if you think you are getting a better deal by paying extra to have a CDS court of common jurisdiction impose banishments upon anonymous griefer alts after three iterations of bureaucratic court meetings to ensure due procedure then you are quite plainly mistaken.

A determined griefer will be able to drown in work the CDS court system as it stands since each new alt created by the griefer and used to cause grief in our sim(s) will require the tedious bureaucracy of having a marshall of the peace ban the alt; serve a custom notice; make note of the day of banishment; remember this 14 days later so as to lift the banishment; press the case and present it before the court only to achieve the placement of the alt's name on a list of banished avatars and see the same person appear in the sim the next day under a different name.

[Pelanor Eldrich]

The determined griefer scenario is possible. In a case like that we may want to look at my draconian customs proposal as a way to deter wholesale griefing and judiciary meltdown at the expense of some hassle.

As an aside, I am happy we kept the ADR in place. Several business owners would prefer to try mediation or online dispute resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Dispute_Resolution) prior to escalting to CDS court for binding arbitration.