On 6/11/20 1:55 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >> When an Arbitration Case is unassigned, the Head Arbitrator CAN by >> announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, flip its Arbitrator to any >> other value. The Arbitrator SHALL NOT assign an Arbitration Case to a >> person who has a manifest interest in the case, whether monetary or >> otherwise. > This puts the Arbitrator in a tough spot if everyone has an interest. > (I think it was mentioned equity cases in the past had a problem where > almost everyone had an interest.)
Interesting point; I'll probably just weaken it to a SHOULD. > > What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the > Referee / CFJ system handle things? The Referee and judges didn't necessarily opt in to being involved in every possible contract dispute (and it allows more flexibility than the rules currently do). And, if we end up using contracts more, then it allows spreading dispute resolution between more people than shunting it all onto the Referee. > Here's a thought. Punishing contract members with blots is a net loss > to parties to that contract. Maybe a contract would wish to have its > own punishment mechanism where the loss of the convicted is the gain > of the other parties*. They would need some way to make decisions on > that. They could use the CFJ system to determine whether an infraction > occurred, but the Arbitration contract offers discretion in the size > of the penalty which could be an advantage. Interesting idea, but I don't think that needs to be in version 1. > > I'm not sure we've been using contracts heavily enough yet for any of > these complicated things to make sense to use. Fair point. -- Jason Cobb
