zero 0000 wrote:
The scenario is that A brings an arbitration case
against B, the committee looks at both sides of
the dispute, then both A and B get penalties.
This is a clear violation of A's right to due process.
Nobody should be penalised unless a case is brought
against them (by the committee if they wish), it passes
the initial voting as to whether the case should be
heard, then there is a period of argumentation and
collection of evidence specifically in relation to that
person. This is not true in the case of A, since the
voting and Evidence page argumentation is primarily
in relation to B.
If the witnesses in a criminal trial are found to have
committed crimes themselves, they are sceduled
for their own trials. They are not given sentences
by the original court. The same principle should
hold here.
It is not enough to lump A and B together as
defendants at the beginning, as that can still mean
that A is put on trial due to the strength of the
case against B.
This isn't the scenario here though---there are no cases against
specific people, only disputes *between* multiple people. We require
that earlier steps of the dispute-resolution process be followed first,
such as mediation. If these are unsuccessful, the matter goes to
arbitration. The arbitration is thus arbitration of the dispute between
two people, and is charged with resolving it in some way.
The proper analogy, as the name implies, is to arbitration hearings, not
to court cases. It is standard practice in arbitration that sanctions
may be levied against either or both of the parties to a hearing.
-Mark