On 6/8/2020 10:42 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 6:12 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On 6/7/2020 8:42 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: >>> Here's my proto for generalized equity cases. I expect that there will >>> be a bunch of screaming, but it's minimalistic and leaves working out >>> the details of what equity means in practice to case law. Moots >>> provide a sufficient safeguard against abuses. >> >> Seriously, this is overwhelming. Please lets phase all our changes just a >> wee bit. I'll just say I'd like to be involved, and until I see how the >> ruleset looks after the next couple batches I'm not in favor of these >> changes (will vote against) this month. > > > Fair enough. I have a proto now, so we can discuss again whenever.
I think, on reflection, that I don't think we should use the judge/judicial system for equity cases directly. I would rather create a mediation process through the Notary with an inquiry (or maybe criminal) case being the final recourse if that fails. Looking at your proto, I'm also uncomfortable expanding equity to "unfair situations" in general as opposed to just contracts. That's far too much of an open-ended slippery slope for me, and far far too removed from the "game nature" of Agora, as written it could apply to any minor competitive advantage, unless we vastly constrain (with written text) what's meant by "just, fair, and right". But also, we shouldn't really worry about the procedure until we greatly improve (as part of the infractions reform, perhaps) how we're treating contract disputes. Right now, even the worst contract breach, the offending party can just say "eh I broke a SHALL in R1742 give me a couple blots, that's cheaper than keeping my end of the deal". Was fine for very simple stuff. But now we're putting an economic value on blots, that places a strict upper limit for penalties based on the maximum penalty for breaking that SHALL. Can't really build equity around that. >From a sheer "gaming law procedure" viewpoint, I think it would be more interesting to have different officers in charge of the different types of cases (Referee, Notary, Arbitor), rather than having them all be part of the same CFJ ID series, because you could get some interesting jurisdictional disputes that way and if this persists over time, have diverging "traditions" between the offices. -G.
