On 6/11/2020 10:55 AM, 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.) > > What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the > Referee / CFJ system handle things?
Referee (or perhaps better, Notary) hasn't been tried and would be really interesting to do IMO. But that could easily be private contract, too. Issues with CFJ system: - as soon as you give a judge the power to actually change a quantity (other than eir judgement) you have to have a whole system for undoing or staying the effects under moots and motions. - and we don't really want to subject equity settlements to mass voting like through a moot. Maybe an Appeals court would be fine there. - the CFJ system is set up for all the evidence generally being assembled by the first caller (with optional/unregulated gratuitous additions when practical). The multi-step process of "let the plaintiff speak, then let the defendant respond, etc." with 4 days between each step or whatever led to delays but also lacks of response. I think if you rephrase the process as a "referee-led mediation" it would allow the whole thing to be hashed out more naturally during discussion (possibly privately). - previously we included standing - random non-party couldn't start a CFJ that a contract had been breached if the parties were happy. But in Agora, people couldn't resist - you got overrides like third-party inquiry CFJs that said "true/false the contract has been platonically breached even if the parties are happy". I think keeping it in the referee (or Notary) domain would emphasize the separation. There were benefits and it was fun, don't get me wrong, but those are reasons I'd try out a more mediation-driven process (either rules based/notary led, or through contract - no bias there)
