Policy-Discussion

[Philipp Gühring <pg AT futureware.at>]

Hi,

Some past experience values:

> So a valid defence would be to remove all points so
> allocated.  Which might be no bad thing as many people will
> be "in the spirit" and will have (a) enough points and 

5%

> (b) 
> enough capability to get future points, or 

5%

> (c) will not be 
> using the system much anyway.

70%

> At the margin there will be some caught in the net.  They'll
> be unhappy.

20%


> These are tricky issues.  Is it possible to write a policy
> that tells what to do here?  Or should this simply be a
> filed dispute, against self, that asks the Arb to look at
> the facts and give a ruling?

An assurance should only be revoked when we have any material evidence that 
the assurance was wrong.

> Is a police report helpful here?  Firstly, we are in the
> business of trusting our Assurers, so we want their word to
> be good enough.  Secondly, we want them to act fast, not
> wait until some bureaucrat gets some bothersome report typed
>   up and signed by some other bureaucrat ....

It´s an optional feature, and will be only available in the case of theft, 
not 
in case of loss, fire, water, ...

> Personally, I'd wonder what if there is a problem with just
> killing the points?  Make the Web of Trust work for us!
> Send out a tiger team of Assurers to find and assure the
> secondary victims :)

Ok, who wants to signup for the Tiger-Team?

Best regards,
Philipp Gühring