Shireroth

Mmmmrmmmhrrmmm... still not a fan.

Honestly the essay system sounds beyond terrible. If I'm being put on trial by some nutjob that dislikes me enough to put me on trial, the last thing I want to do is write an essay. Plus it just beeeggggggssssss for people to pull the "my real life is packed - I don't have time to be writing essays" card, which they would be almost certain to get away with.

What's wrong with making a simple argument for or against and having the judges decide which case is better?

If you restrict it to a simple argument for and against, that's fine. If you continue to yell at eachother about increasingly irrelevant things, well ...

I think we need to decide on a level of formality and rigidity. Now, in RL trials, there is a point to all the formality and rigidity, namely to guarantee the integrity of the process, and make sure that everyone gets equal treatment (in theory). Here, since we all know each other, and the severity of the cases are never in the murder range, if you catch my drift, there is no reason for that. I think the suggestion that a trial should be conducted more or less as a three-way discussion between prosecution, judge and defendant to be the best one. Evidence can be introduced freely, and it is up to the presiding judge to judge what evidence is admissable and not. Since, as Scott says, most evidence will probably be available online, this should present no problem. I also don't think we need some special provision to allow for the "this is silly and I want it dropped" motion since that is pretty much just a motion to dismiss. You can always make those.

So, in conclusion, I support a structured system that is based on a simple process where the trial takes the form of a discussion, with free evidence.