Participant-Based Policy Enforcement
► Any participant of a particular exchange can volunteer to help enforce its CEP, provided that the initiator choses to make this available to their participants. If so, then volunteers (called observers) will be randomly assigned to investigations regarding ethical violations detected by participants during the evaluation process of an exchange.
► If a submitted directive is reported to be in violation of CEP by three or more participants during a single evaluation phase, then a number of observers equal to three times the amount of violation reports come together to deliberate on the fate of the directive in question.
► Observers are then given 100 Observation Ions to be distributed among two judgment directives (Positive & Negative) as they see fit.
► The length of the observation phase is the same length of time as that exchange’s evaluation phase in which the violation occurred.
► If a majority of the Observation Ions accumulated are Positive, then the directive in question has been determined to be in violation of the CEP. The participant who submitted the violating directive looses all Ions accumultated in the same exchange.
► If most of the Observation Ions accumulated are Negative, then the directive in question has been determined to not be in violation of the CEP. Therefore, the participants that originally marked the directive as “Violation” will each forfeit half of the Ions they've accumulate from the exchange to the participant falsely accused of violating the CEP. This is to designed to reduce the chances of accusations with low-confidence or to protect against cases of false accusation.
► If the number of Positive and Negative Observation Ions accumulated during observation are equal (a statistical rarity), then the participants who marked the directive in question as a violation of CEP go about their business and the user that submitted the Directive is allowed to keep any points scored in the exchange through that discovery phase.

Comments