allinbits / carmel Goto Github PK

About Initial terms

Both parties agree on a moderator.

There should be considered a replacement for the moderator in case of a problem resulting from the chosen moderator like a decease or involvement with any of the parties by any reason to let the affected party to remove him.

Step 1. Determine the topic points.

If there was a court filing, the majority of key claims must be from filings.

If a filling has more than 7 points how must be solved? Will the moderator have the responsibility to filter the relevant ones?

Step 2. Debate each topic point.

The defendant replies, or the court filing's replies are used (if present).

If it's not present, how the debate will follow after the first answer?

Then plaintiff replies, then defendant replies, and so on until the moderator terminates the debate.

What happens if one of the parties doesn't respond?

The medium of communication will be via email.

Why not a place where the messages will be encrypted so only the members can decrypt it to avoid any party to accuse the other party is the guilty of a slow debate? Each encrypted signature would mean the owner party of that signature has released another response.

Each reply is expected to take some time to complete.

Maybe the moderator and the parties should agree on a time limit to respond before starting to avoid any party to take advantage of time in debates with short time to be developed.

Extra A. Incentives, Dismissal, Releases

Either party can incentivize for the other party to participate.

Talking about incentives the moderator should be considered. This is in order to keep a compromise with the debate until the finalisation.

Incentives may include clawback clauses if the moderator determines appropriate.

This point reinforces the idea of a secondary moderator in case the first moderator becomes a bad actor for one of the parties.

Extra B. Truthfulness

If a false statement is made, punishable up to 2x the reward.

If a statement is proven to be false, shouldn't we consider mentioning it in the final statement to show the attempt of one of the parties if was bad intentioned.

At any time, either party can create a platform for, or run, a bounty program for whistleblowers to testify about false statements made.

What happens if the whistleblower has a relationship with the affected party? Is there a way to protect the whistleblowers?

The moderator decides the rules needed to preserve privacy where appropriate.

Does this point considers the privacy of the identity of the whistleblower?

The moderator decides the rules needed to preserve privacy where appropriate.

Which are the consequences of not following the privacy set by the moderator?

Assuming Carmel will be implemented on GNO, we should state explicitly which are the components that will compose the realm. Right now there are these structures in a simple way because we have to refine each part (right?)

• Party (name, members, debate_ids)
• Moderator (name, debate_id)
• Statements (author, message, history, debate_id)
• Debate (party1, party2, moderator, topics, turn, conversation, incentives, conclusion)

Is this correct? Which ones are missing and which are the missing parts for the mentioned ones?