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

[Maxime Rouquet]

On 01/24/2012 04:41 PM, Thijs Markus wrote:
> 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?

To all : please, point out evidence when you file corruption charges
against PPI organs. Corruption is a fact, not a feeling.

Maybe you wanted to say "lack of professionalism" or "clumsiness".

(In that last case, I would agree with you, but please do not charge the
whole PPI CoA for a small mistake of one single member : myself.)

> 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?

Rules of procedure are public, see here :
http://int.piratenpartei.de/PPI_CoA/Rules_of_Procedure

Secrecy of debate gives us the option to discuss *every* possible issue
to a claim without being disturbed.

In order to respect transparency, each ruling motivations are explained
in the ruling (and can be challenged afterwards if needed).

> 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?

The "guilty" here is the PPI General Assembly.

> 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.

That is included in the roles of the CoA, see :
http://int.piratenpartei.de/PPI_CoA/Rules_of_Procedure

> 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.

Your point about "friends in the right places" is not wrong, but your
lottery system is not a solution.

May I remind you that the Court of Arbitration is elected by the PPI
General Assembly ?

If there are things to change, it should be done in the election process
and/or in the ease of participating and voting at the GA for all PPI
members.

> This is not even mentioning the court decision is apparently made by 4 out
> of its, I belief 9 members.

(4 out of 7 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.

CoA members are elected at every GA, so once a year. Just like the board
and the rest of the PPI officers.

> 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?

I believe you could simply not vote for corrupted people. (And stop
charging people for corruption without evidence.)