[Private] Reference system/other organisational bits

Abbey

Abbey

TNPer
Right. I know we had a discussion about this the other night on IRC, but I think, despite the slight disagreement, it's certainly worth considering. A general discussion in #tnp has suggested a few things, and a reason why we should have a (simple) reference system of some sort - for ease of use of the court decision archive. It's get very large very quickly, and as long as we can't use separate posts (Elu's code dies), it would be simplify things if you could recall the reference number, by ctrl-Fing through the thing. As well as the points I brought up the other night, for ease of reference in other rulings and everything else. It need not be any more complicated than just numbering them from the start of those in the current archive.

Another idea that was suggested was producing some sort of brief version of each ruling, with its associated number, so that you could scroll through a list of the numbers/brief version, find the number you need, and quickly jump through to it. I think the production of the brief version shouldn't be a major issue - it's not legally binding, and does not need to be longer than a sentence on two - but would make -our- lives easier, too.

But I'm open to persuasion on this. What'd ya think?
 
Io strongly favor a reference system. Strongly. But to be honest with you, I don't really feel like fighting with Sanc over it because he can't see it. I just think it would make things easier for everyone when trying to cite laws or rulings and whatnot.

I would be more than willing to take this project on.
 
I don't want a reference system, the way things operate currently is fine.

It doesn't matter whether or not I can "see it", I'm not in favour of upheaving the judicial archival system just because you're bored and you need something to do.
 
That's...not why we want to do it. At its very simplest, we're talking about a half hour job - adding reference numbers to all the cases that are in the archive thread. Numbers which could be as simple as #1, #2.

It's about ease of use, and the ability to find rulings quickly, and easily, as well as reference them within other rulings in a much less cumbersome fashion.
 
If you find referencing them cumbersome, then that's your problem obviously. If I can do, and if others can do it, then where is the problem that needs fixing?
 
It's about ease of use, and the ability to find rulings quickly, and easily, as well as reference them within other rulings in a much less cumbersome fashion.
Click to expand...

I completely agree.
 
I would like to bump this proposal. The original suggestion by Abbey was indeed one I originally advocated to her on IRC.

The basic idea is as follows:

Right now, to cite previous decisions by the Court, you need to copy and paste their entire titles. Those titles are usually considerably long, and doing so inline through your text distracts from the flow of the argument.

What I propose is that, in addition and supplementary to the titles, its decision is affixed a numeric ID of sorts. Then, in any of your writings, you can reference cases either by their full title, or by their ID, or both.

It is useful to draw an analogy with our laws. Our laws have, in addition to titles and the actual text, a numbering system for Articles, Sections, and Clauses. The numbering system is entirely redundant in terms of actual legal effect. It is only there to accommodate referencing different legal provisions. Think of how hard it would be to reference any law, either in a formal document or in IMs, if we got rid of the numbering system.

The numeric IDs attached to decisions would work in exactly the same way.

Let me know what you think. If we are all in agreement, I will present the actual ID scheme I have in mind.
 
A good idea, R3n.

We could simply create a numerical system such as a chronological list starting with the first case in the archives (start with Case 1, 2, 3, etc. along with the title of said case such as "TNP vs Joe Shmoe"). Then next to each case, the legal principles involved in that case. In that instance, the text of the list can simply be searched for subject matter, or a list of cases by subject matter/principles.

It could most easily done as a simple list with links so that justices, attorneys and litigants can simply peruse the list for source documents.
 
I am not very keen on trying to extract legal principles, as that can be an objective matter that should be left to formal decisions.

What I have in mind is: separate chronological indices for reviews, civil cases, and criminal cases. Something like, R-1, R-2, etc. for reviews, C-1, C-2, etc. for criminal, etc. Then the list would also show the title next to each ID (most of the reviews have very descriptive titles right now, so they are effectively already doing what Roman is suggesting).

I will have some time to work on this over the next couple of days, so I'll take a stab at it and post an update here for comments/feedback.
 
Good approach. I think we can get everything in order to make our jobs (and everyone else's for that matter) easier.
 
An update on this:

I had the admins create two new forums inside the legal archive, the Criminal Case Archive and the Judicial Review Archive. I have then gone through the 11 pages of the generic court archive forum, separated out threads constituting concluded cases, and moved them to the forum corresponding to their category.

I will now go through each of the threads in the new two archive forums, and attach to them a neutral citation, as we discussed earlier. The citations will be numbered starting from the very first case heard in the Court in this forum, in 2006.

I also made some changes to the list of rulings you get from the "Laws" link at the top. I added a review that was missing, rearranged some threads, and also added links to the actual case threads (the list only has the ruling, but one may also want to look at the questions asked, or any briefs filed, etc.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top