Quote:
Originally Posted by kaev
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Have any of you advocates actually looked at the workings of precedence-based legal systems (like, oh, say, the U.S.)?
|
Yes. I am extremely familiar with the concept of jurisprudence and its applications.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kaev
you're advocating redefining LawyerQuest in the most awful way imaginable.
|
I disagree. "LawyerQuest" is already at its maximum potential. Dozens, if not hundreds, of conversations occur over Skype, via PM, and in game every time one these petitions is made. Guilds and their advocates are already throwing the kitchen sink during argument, and there's very little room to make it more complicated.
Making petitions open will have two effects the make your fears unnecessary.
1) Public communications will force the petitions and responses to be concise, appropriate, and exhaustive. No more back and forth of he said she said for days and weeks on end. Open petitions, by their nature, demand that the argument be front loaded. Thus, your fear that LawyerQuest will escalate is put to rest.
2) The rules come first. The precedence is in the application of those rules only. This means that there is ultimately less room for argument and that the rules will become more and more defined as time passes. This means that LawyerQuest will become increasingly restricted as time passes.
I understand your desire to eliminate pointless argument and unjust situations, but private petitions with no formal organization for their resolution are not efficient, nor are they conducive to justice and fair play.