Evidence and Justice: make a decision someone can appeal
Practise civic deliberation with a disclosed rubric, traceable reasons, and a correction route.
Agree on the question first
The Senta crew is imagining a shared workshop for a fictional station. One team proposes a quiet repair room; another proposes a drone practice area. This civic simulation can become a hackathon or team competition, with learning and portfolio work as rewards. It does not award a real tender or issue an automatic legal judgment. Before comparing proposals, agree on the decision question, who is affected, which evidence is admissible, and who may challenge the process. Keep people's dignity outside the scoring system.
Separate evidence from preferences
A rubric makes priorities visible but cannot remove disagreement about values. Define each criterion and its scoring anchors before reading submissions. Accessibility might concern whether a person can use the proposed activity without sound; feasibility might concern the supplied materials and time. State how weights work and how ties are handled. A missing source should be marked pending, not quietly scored as failure or excellence. Record conflicts of interest and give competing teams the same opportunity to clarify their evidence.
Use the saga without labelling people
JUDJELESS and JUDJENESS are provisional fictional saga terms for unchecked decisions and accountable review. They are never moral labels for real people, political parties, or children. In the story, even Admiral Senta can revise a decision after Julia Senta finds a missing source. Outside the story, describe the actual process defect: an unpublished criterion, an unsupported score, or an unanswered appeal. AGENTJUDGE can structure evidence review, but a review aid cannot grant itself civic or legal authority.
Preserve the path to correction
Publish the simulation's decision record with the rubric version, evidence references, reasons, unresolved issues, and appeal procedure. Use team pseudonyms and remove personal details that the exercise does not need. An appeal should identify a disputed step or overlooked source and reach a reviewer able to reconsider it. A team may lose under a fair rubric and still produce strong learning work. The actual next action is to draft the rubric and tie rule, then exchange them before either team writes its proposal.
Try it yourself
DEMO rubric: total equals twice accessibility plus feasibility plus maintenance. DEMO scores for A are 4, 2, 3; for B, 3, 4, 3. Acceptance: both totals equal 13. Record a tie, apply only a previously disclosed tie procedure, and draft an appeal naming a disputed score and its supporting evidence.
Check your result
- The calculation alone does not select a winner.
- An acceptable appeal identifies a reviewable step rather than attacking a person.
- The record remains a simulation, with no tender award or legal verdict.
This draft stays on your device until you download it. Use the TVIJO discussion for server-stored feedback.