Taxonomy / Parallel lineages / Fitting a trained judge to each community

Fitting a trained judge to each community

One trained system does the judging, and what varies by community is how that system is fitted to the place it is running and who gets the ruling back. Two ways of fitting sit here: a bench of community-specialized experts with an allocator that picks which expert rules on a given post and an explainer that gives the reason in that community's own vocabulary; or a single model pooled across a hundred communities to capture the shared signal, then given a decision threshold set separately for each community and wired to refer its calls to that community's own human moderators. The two differ in where the community lives — in separate experts, or in a threshold and a referral loop on top of a shared model — but both end the same way: one case, one ruling, with that community's own accumulated history deciding where its line falls and who reviews it.

The method, against Parallel lineages

Scroll the diagram sideways to see all of it.

Also places in

  • Steerable persona pluralism — The per-community experts are separate trained models selected by a routing step, which is the steerable-persona architecture; what places it primarily in Parallel lineages is that each expert is built from its own community's history of decided cases rather than from a persona description.

Counts and the concept reading below use the primary regime only.

Concept Analysis: Theoretical Foundations

Each concept is read twice: whether the approach carries it, and whether the approach's own sources claim it. A concept that is absent and was never claimed is a gap in the field rather than a failure of the work, and is marked out of scope.

Plural normative orders

PresentClaimed · delivered

Definition · John Griffiths, What Is Legal Pluralism? (1986)

Several bodies of norms operate at once within one social field — not one official system plus exceptions, but multiple living systems of rules side by side, each generating its own decisions.

Analysis

Several bodies of decisions are genuinely in force at once, each built from its own community's history: MoMoE instantiates seven community-specialized experts, and Decoding the Rule Book recovers each subreddit's standard from that subreddit's own removals and shows the recovered standards differ. Not one official rulebook with tolerated local variation — separate living orders. What complicates the reading is that MoMoE's selling point is applying those experts to thirty communities they were not built from, so the lineages are real but their reach is not confined to the communities that generated them.

Interlegality

AbsentNot claimed · out of scope

Definition · Boaventura de Sousa Santos, Toward a New Legal Common Sense (2002)

The orders do not just sit in parallel — they interpenetrate. People live at their intersections, subject to several at once; the boundaries themselves are porous.

Analysis

The orders are disjoint by construction. A post belongs to exactly one community, and neither system has a representation for a case that lives at the intersection of two standards. Generalization to thirty unseen subreddits is transfer, not interpenetration: it treats a new community as another instance of the same kind rather than as an order overlapping the others.

Choice of forum

PartialClaimed · partial

Definition · Conflict-of-laws practice

With several lineages of decisions in force, a stated rule must route each new case to one of them. Otherwise parties simply shop for the forum that favors them — which is this regime's predicted failure.

Analysis

MoMoE's Allocate operator does route each case to a body of decisions, which is the function conflict-of-laws asks for and which nothing else in the map performs. But it is a learned allocator optimized for accuracy, not a stated rule: nobody can be told in advance which community's standard will judge their case, nobody can invoke the rule, and nobody can contest the allocation. Decoding the Rule Book has no routing step at all.

Concept Analysis: Newly Introduced

A learned allocator in place of a forum rule

Added

Conflict of laws exists because someone must be able to say, in advance and with reasons, which body of law hears a case. Routing by a learned allocator gets the same case to the same kind of decision-maker without any of that: the answer arrives, and no one can be told why this forum rather than another.

Papers

No method has been built here yet — this approach rests entirely on what follows.