> 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? 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. 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. - Falsifian
