Grid Law Teams are how the network handles the crimes its Basic Law names. They are not courts in the old sense — no robes, no buildings, no permanent judges. They are assembled volunteers, ranked by Credit in a specific domain of law, who take cases onto the Grids platform, build the evidence, argue the positions, and vote the sentences. The whole apparatus runs on reputation, the way the rest of the network does, and produces rulings the network enforces as one.
The premise ¶
Each Grid writes its own internal laws. The Law Teams exist to prosecute crimes that cross Grid borders or break the Basic Law floor every Grid agreed to honour. When one of those crimes is reported, a case is assembled: witnesses, logs, forensic evidence, proposed charges. The case is filed on the platform, visible to every user who has earned enough Credit in Law to participate.
Credit-gated participation ¶
Only users with high Credit in the Law domain can vote. Credit in Law is not easily bought or gamed — it accrues over time through prior participation, training, and the quality of past rulings, measured by the network's long-run satisfaction with those rulings. Low-Credit voices can observe and comment; high-Credit voices set the sentence. It is a jury system with the bench collapsed into the jury and the jury ranked by track record.
Sentencing ¶
Voting produces a sentence. The network enforces it — physically, if necessary, via Emergency Services. Those who vote well gain Credit; those who vote badly lose it. Like everything in the Reward Banks system, the incentive loop is reputational: a vote is a small public commitment, tied to a personal score that follows you across the network forever.
Why they matter ¶
Law Teams are the network's answer to the two old problems of justice — corrupt benches and uneducated mobs. By ranking voters on their own demonstrated understanding of the law, and by keeping the bench identical with the jury, the system never lets a permanent class capture justice. No one is a judge for life. No one is above the vote. The network decides, and the network bears the consequence of deciding badly. It is Optionism applied to the courtroom.