comex wrote: >Perhaps the initiators of the appeal could have the option of (at the cost >of barring themselves) barring two other players. This could be possible >only if there would be at least X eligible panels afterwards (to prevent >rigging).
Overcomplicated. I do not think that it is the purpose of discretionary barring to disqualify everyone who has ever declared an opinion on the case. Barring should only be removing those who have such a direct interest that they are unlikely to be able to act impartially. On non-appeal cases I think we've got this about right, including in criminal cases a built-in bias in favour of the defendant. (Partnerships screw it up a bit; never got round to fixing that, but maybe now we're going to abolish them altogether.) On appeal cases the only extra barring is the disqualification of the prior judge, yielding a pro-appeal bias. This is a small community, so by this stage (in a contentious case) nearly everyone has expressed support for one side or the other. It would be impractical and unproductive to try to ban all these people, especially since they tend to be the ones who have put some thought into the issue. -zefram
