Kelly Martin wrote:
I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current
size (or close to
it) and establish lower courts to filter off the relatively easy
stuff and to organize the cases into a form so that when they do
appeal the ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time marshalling
the case.
A few Arbitration Assistants would not be remiss, either.
Kelly
I really like this idea. It seems to work pretty well in the U.S.
courts: The higher court would simply refuse to hear the appealed case
unless they think something went /procedurally/ wrong in the lower
court. This would give us near-infinite scalability while still
maintaining accountability for the higher "judges" if you will. There
aren't really any drawbacks either. I would be in favor of creating a
proposed policy to this end.
Appelate courts also do not permit new evidence to be brought forth.
They judge on points of law rather than facts. It would be up to the
lower ranking tribunal to sort through the mass of irrelevant material
that is often raised.
Ec