On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wouldn't be surprised either argument prevailing here (and I wouldn't > appeal one going your way, though I would appeal one based on R101). It > was always risky to give equity cases the ability to affect things > flexibly, but I thought it was worth the risk. I think the best solution > that preserves the flexibility while limiting abuses is to make equity > cases appealable by anyone (so inappropriate scam-equity judgements can > get tossed out as inequitable).
They already can be appealed by anyone using the standard "with two support" mechanism. In a case such as this one, however, I firmly believe that SUSTAIN would be the only appropriate judgement, since 1) the contract is at least not inherently inequitable and 2) equitability should be measured in the eyes of the parties to the contract. I would probably support a measure to make judgements that are "equitable, with gravy" be inappropriate. It would need to be carefully written so as not to interfere with legitimate equations, however, and I'm not sure how best to approach that. -root
