I'm fully with Cormac on this. I've been in regions that have very active courts and it is not a good thing. People go to them to seek redress for grievances as a first resort and it promotes a fractious, unfriendly culture. The region becomes divided and disputes and conflicts are not settled quickly, informally and amicably but are dragged out with the result that divides deepen. An active court is the last thing any region needs, and given the past here it is definitely not something we should want for ourselves.Cormac wrote:Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:56 pmThis I do not agree with. While I would like to see members of the court remain active so that we'll know they will be active when it comes time for a trial, I do not personally want to see much activity in the Pschent itself. I don't want to see us define so many things as crimes that we constantly have citizens being frivolously prosecuted, and I don't want to see constant legal disputes, just for the sake of Pschent activity. That kind of activity isn't healthy for a region.Jurisdictions wrote:Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:12 pm4. Something to keep in mind is that we will want the court to remain as active as possible. The more work that you are able to give them, the better. So, being open with the parameters of the court is far from a bad thing.
Contrast the regions where the courts aren't resorted to to settle disputes and you have more friendly places, with a greater sense of community and less disputes arising in the first place, and if they do they're more likely to be settled informally without any negative consequences. They're flexible and not wedded to strict legality and being a friendly community is more important than having perfect laws and legal redress. That is the model we should look for.

