On 7/6/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
DRV is *not* an appeals court. The rules that apply to appeals courts in the USA, Canada, Australia, and I assume practically everywhere else, do *not* apply to DRV. We need to remember that. DRV is not, it's true, in the business of providing a venue for AfD Take Two, but neither is it totally uninterested in the outcome provided process is followed.
I think the analogy is a valid one. Appeals courts (mostly) are very very reluctant to overturn findings of fact made by lower or trial courts, and instead are interested on points of law. DRV is most of the time interested in whether "process" was followed, and is not usually in the business of questioning the judgment on the evidence of people who participated in the original *fD.
Of course, DRV is generally more open to reconsidering the result when there is new evidence (uncovering more sources establishing notability, etc) which wasn't available to the original *fD. In these situations it can choose to relist, or endorse/overturn the *fD right away. Again this is fairly consistent with the analogy of an appeals court, which can order a retrial or endorse/overturn the verdict.
Of course, I'm not saying that this is necessarily a good thing, but I do think that the comparison holds.
So I suppose the question when considering potential reform for DRV is how to strike a balance between the current process-only focus, and the other extreme, "AfD Take Two", as you put it Mark. How to achieve the ability to overturn Bad Decisions while retaining a balance between these extremes?