@ Matt_AlfalfaOrSpanky
I took the letter from the proposal, section Appeal Process paragraph 1.
a. Deadlines not being respected by the Judges.
b. Parties weren’t notified properly.
c. If one of the Judges leaks confidential information.
d. If one of the Parties has evidence that one of the Judges was biased or bribed.
e. Parties didn’t have the opportunity to present their case.
The simple exchange of tokens and services should make up for more than 99 % of transactions for now. If not all. And this proposal can be finished with this case in mind.
I don’t think I agree though. There are adjacent discussions to be had. Especially if posted escrow is deemed insignificant. Excluding people from our (not yet existing) marketplace could be a method. Or even publishing their address publicly as fraudulent.
I spend some more time thinking about this. The more I think about this, the more I understand, that I want a court of appeal. Not a more supreme one. Just one, that guards the proper proceedings. I’m going to call this court of proceedings from now on. One that never administers the case itself. But only guards the principles, that should govern our main court.
In the case of c and d it needs to be modified slightly. We probably want to trigger a DAO vote on replacement of the judge in that case. But in general I envision a process like this:
- The parties can file a complaint, depositing a collateral to protect from pointless appeals (1 $NATION?). There can only be filed under the following grounds:
a. Deadlines were not respected by the Judges.
b. Parties were not notified properly.
c. At least one of the Judges leaked confidential information.
d. One of the Judges was biased or bribed.
e. Parties did not have the opportunity to present their case or the Judges omitted submitted evidence.
f. The ruling unproportionally undermines the values of our constitution.
g. The verdict violates proportionality regarding the subject of dispute.
A appeal must clearly state, which single one of the above cases it’s based on. There might be multiple appeals under different of the above cases for the same court case.
If the appeal is suspensive, unless it’s filed under c. There is a period of two days for appeals, after that the judgement shall be executed. If the appeal is made at a later point in time, the appeals is still valid.
[Example: The evidence, that our judge was bribed, may only have appeared later.
The original judgement may be carried out at that point. So reimbursement can’t be guaranteed, even if the appeal is successful.]
2. The courts of proceedings has 2 days to preliminary accept or decline the appeal. The court shall only check, whether the claim is of any substance.
We want to guarantee the timely execution, if there is no evidence of any wrongdoing. If the case is rejected as being without substance, the collateral is slashed.
The reason of the appeal may be changed by the court of appeal, if the appeal is misclassified.
The appeal might be rejected as duplicate. If so, the court of appeal may choose to slash or reimburse the collateral as it sees fit. We don’t want to punish our citizens for misclicks, they cause cause significant additional work.
3. If the case is accepted, an appeal proceeding takes place.
Both parties as well as the original judges can present evidence. The default Evidence Submission Time Window applies, regardless of the Evidence Submission Time Window for the original case.
4. If the appeal is rejected after the fact phase, the collateral is slashed.
If the appeal is at least partially accepted, the collateral is reimbursed.
In that case the court of appeal can trigger any following at it’s own discretion:
- If the appeal was filed under a, b, e, f or g, the case may be remitted to the original court. The case is reopened as new in that case.
- If the complaint was filed under d, the case may be remitted to different Judges of the original court. The case is reopened as new in that case.
- If the appeal was filed under c or d, a reelection of any of the Judges in question may be triggered.
- If the appeal was filed under f, a shortened reasonably anonymized version of the violation may be published in the forum, if it’s deemed relevant for the cohesion of the understanding of our constitution.
Even if the appeal is valid, none of the above are required.
[Example: The Judges might have unduly evidence under e, which is too insignificant to reopen the original case. This might be case, if stronger evidence for the same factual claim was admitted. The Judges shall be informed and admonished for more diligence. The collateral gets reimbursed, but the case is not reopened based on the complaint.]
Someone, who served on the court of appeals, shall not be allowed to become a normal judge later. I think we need that to prevent collusion.
I don’t think this is prefect by any means. But I think it sets a good baseline, such that appeals are possible and handled in a decent fashion, without breaking underlying promises significantly. While keeping the process smooth and quick in the normal case.
Summary
PS: Less relevant sidetrack:
I don’t even think, I’d agree to this. Let me make an example: B advertises his great expertise. A decides to hire him based on the displayed expertise. After the output is done, A is unhappy about the quality of the work. A gathers evidence of fraudulent statements and presents a case.
Fact finding can be very useful.
I still agree we should avoid that for now. We should care about the low hanging fruits right now.
I do think there is a discussion to be had here, but that doesn’t belong in this thread. This tread is already complex enough.
Edit: Broken format.
