[pp.int.general] Court of Arbitration ruling 2012-1-A: public call for evidence

[Thijs Markus]

Am I the only one who finds it hilarious, that on their very first case,
the CoA proves to be just as corrupt as the establishment we all oppose?
Really... what is this CoA anyway? Some pitiful attempt to proclaim some
half-witted people experts, and having us all follow their judgements. What
a way to supplant transparent debate with closed proceedings. These people
should not exist, CoA should not exist. Lets get rid of this now, shall we?

Really, how can an organisation that promotes freedom loving, future loving
parties have a court like this? Court are over half a millennium old, and
guess what? They never bite the hands that feeds them. (see the pirate bay
trial, for a recent example.) Why on earth has someone figured it to be a
good idea that such an organ should exist within PPI, and worse, why has
everyone else gone along with it? I just cant wrap my head around this one.
Why does it even exist?

If arbitration between parties is necessary, the last thing we need is a
court to decide who is wrong and who is right, what we need is a negotiator
who finds the middle ground and turns the conflict into a deepening of the
relationship. And should at long last the parties not be able to agree, we
can always have a lottery from the PPI coordinators of the associated PPI
members. This way, at least we avoid the possibility of 'friends in the
right places'. Given the level of expertise the present CoA can claim, its
unreasonable to expect a drop in quality.

This is not even mentioning the court decision is apparently made by 4 out
of its, I belief 9 members. Aside from making the decision anyhow invalid,
this also points out that this organ is not flexible enough to have a place
in a constantly evolving, expanding and shrinking movement. We cannot
assign people for years who will not be around for years.

Long story short: Courts create inflexible key positions, key positions
attract the corruptible, lets not have these unnecessary key positions.
Everyone with me on this?

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:13:00 +0100, Marco Confalonieri
<marco.confalonieri at pp-international.net> wrote:
> **** Public call for evidence ****
> 
> In its 2012 January 17h ruling n°2012-1-A, the PPI Court of Arbitration
> based its judgement on the absence of answers to the public call for
> evidence made in its 2012 January 3rd preliminary ruling n°2012-1.
> 
> A technical problem prevented the call to be made in the PPI general
> discussion mailing-list, of which some member claim to have material to
> invalidate the ruling.
> 
> The PPI Court of Arbitration renews by the present statement its public
> call for evidence of January 3rd, with a new deadline of 2012 February
> 1st, and based on answers to this call will consider if all or part of
> the n°2012-1-A ruling must be invalidated and ruled again.
> 
> Sven Clement,
> Marco Confalonieri,
> Arturo Martinez,
> Maxime Rouquet