nch wrote:
On May 28, 2020, 11:55 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
One of the issues is that we don't really do "equity" (we tried once, it was complicated and interesting but I don't think it really worked).
Equity itself is transactional though, because we're all players and any transactions might affect all of us. In chess a judge could make a ruling to even it out, but our judges are also playing at the same time.
Equity cases tried to deal with this by requiring the judge to not be a member of the contract/whatever in question. This memorably broke down when the economy was de facto dominated by a contract (the Agoran Agricultural Association) where almost all players were members. If we did bring it back, I'd suggest just limiting it to judges who the Arbitor believes have minimal vested interest. Equity cases, since they deal with more options than just TRUE or FALSE (or a few other options), may also be more prone to situations where Alice and her two friends will appeal any judgement including X, while Bob and his two friends will appeal any judgement not including X. At that point, the judge should be able to punt to something like: "Okay, here's a proposal that either includes or doesn't include X depending on vote annotations, do both sides agree ahead of time that adopting this proposal either way will settle the case?"
