On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:56 PM James Cook via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> 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.) > > What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the > Referee / CFJ system handle things?
It gives more freedom to contracts. > > I agree with ais523 that it would be cool to do more things by contract. > > 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. This makes sense. What I think would be a solution would be to make the arbitration process more abstract but set the current limitations as the default while allowing contracts to set up other systems. > > I'm not sure we've been using contracts heavily enough yet for any of > these complicated things to make sense to use. > > *E.g. pseudo-blots that can be paid off by paying Coins to the > contract, with the threat of real blots if you don't pay them off. I like this idea. > > - Falsifian
