Support Dylan as new Arbitrator
The following is intended to provide all concerned parties with a summary of my beliefs, background and other supporting factors related to my intention of becoming an EOS arbitrator. If all goes well, my services as an arbitrator on EOS could be in rather high demand. The first reason why is my plan to offer specialized arbitration. The second reason is my willingness to work with developers in drafting impeccable contracts. Both reasons can be found elaborated upon below. Of course, I also go over my basic qualifications, why I want to be an EOS arbitrator and finally provide links to my recent relevant published works on fourms.eosgo.io
Character Qualifications and Arbitrational Desires
I want to be an arbitrator on EOS because I am semi-obsessed with EOS and I want to be a part of establishing natural order on the first blockchain to transcend “code-is-law”. Above all, I am an honest man. I suppose honesty is a qualifying factor for most every job with the exception of politicians. Yet in my mind unwavering honesty should be of the utmost importance for arbitrators. I have endured enough education to meet the requirements and I like to think I am on the more intelligent side. I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong and I own my mistakes. I operate mainly in a logical manner, seldom allow emotional stimuli to influence my decisions, and I am not easily brought to anger or overcome with emotions.
Personal Philosophy and Moral Practices
My words, behavior, and thoughts are guided by a deep devotion to honesty rather than popular intentions of pleasing others or fear of offending individuals. You might be suppressed to hear, the key to finding and holding onto ever-elusive personal happiness, at least in my experience, is complete radical honesty. Further, my conscious quest for honesty continues to provide me with a strong sense of personal identity, life purpose, and moral guidance.
I also believe humans to be creatures of faith AKA (beliefs, assumptions, axioms). I would love for everyone to be fully aware of what they believe in, why they believe it, and the cost/benefit of holding such a belief system. I believe we all have the capacity for critical independent thinking, divine self-discovery, and radical honesty.
I have been into Blockchain for some year and a half and for a large part of this time I was counting down the days till EOS went live. Honestly, I was a little disappointed but I am far from discouraged and this disappointment has actually prompted me to become more involved in the community.
State Sponsored Education & Independent Legal Studies
I graduated a Liberal Arts University with a bachelors of science. Many professors, and high school teachers for that matter, suggested I attend law school to hone my “naturally persuasive” tendencies and turn my habit of loudly objecting in the face of injustices into a career. I imagine I could have made a decent lawyer but I do not regret my decision to avoid law school. I have done a great deal of individual research into the processes and language of conventional Legal systems and I discovered enough to remain convinced that the American BAR association is no place for a moral man. Besides I have enough education to know, the formalities of school are often a great hindrance to actual learning.
My independent studies into legal matters gives me a unique perspective into the legal world without the traditional biases of law school and BAR members. A lawyer who’s livelihood depends on general respect for and fear of the "justice system" is unlikely to offer real criticisms on the nature of man-made-law, but I can tell you, the foundation of legality as an institution of man-made-law is ill-consensual at best. To say I disdain legal practices and language would be truthful, but there are many other categories or law and that does not mean I they are all so evil. I am rather fascinated with natural law in a good way, and I also have much respect for the intention of common law, alas I am afraid even common law has fallen victim to the corporation of legality. I hope to keep legalese out of EOS governance and out of the corruptible hands of BAR members.
I am not sure if it will be possible in the current ECAF set up, but my initial plan is to specialize in arbitration matters pertaining to injured parties exclusively. I want to be the arbitrator people name when they don’t want frivolous matters taken seriously in arbitration. Essentially, if there were no victim or injured party, I would dismiss the matter. This would primarily involve contracts between individuals, and if it works out, I would not arbitrate over constitution violations unless there was also an injured party.
In addition, I would offer arbitration services specifically for EOS users who wish the Legalese language to be kept out of EOS contracts and thus arbitration. There are many problems with such legal language but the most obvious issue is that most people, even well-educated people, do not, cannot, comprehend the actual underlying intention and meaning of common legal terms. I would specialize in using proper language for contracts that everyone can understand and agree upon, or rather I would arbitrate over breach of contracts in a way so as to interpret the contractual language using proper English, as commonly understood and outlined in Webster’s dictionary. Blacks Law Dictionary will have no place at my arbitration table. The other side to this equation is the contracts themselves, so I will attempt to help users and contract authors to use proper English and avoid confusing legal terms while writing everything as clearly agreeable as the English language will permit.
It would be in everyone’s best interest for me as arbitrator, to work with contract authors, help transpose contractual intentions, and clarify possible misinterpretations, especially if they plan to name me as arbitrator. If I can limit my personal liability with a big bold disclaimer, It would further be generally advantageous for me as arbitrator to play the “what if game” with folks working on a new contracts. The "what if game" would have to be a best guess situation and not at all binding, but I think it could improve overall contract comprehension and assist users in writing ever better contracts.
I would of course hear cases of a purely constitutional nature if need be, or required to, and I would uphold the letter of the constitution in such a situation. My beliefs on and suggestions about improving constitutional clarity and the nature of consent on EOS have been made clear and links are provided below for transparency sake. Rest assured, I take voluntary agreements very seriously and the current consensus is that consent is mandatory through use of EOS Blockchain. Apparently, they will not consider an arbitration applicant who disagrees with the nature of constitutional consent, so until such a time as that can be properly addressed, I think it to be in the best interest of EOS users to officially state that as an ECAF arbitrator I will not challenge the validity of the constitution or its underlying method of consent. My word is my bond and honesty is my life. If I were to continue providing suggestions for improvement on either matter after joining ECAF, I would do so expressly as a community member and clearly not an official arbitrator. If I use an alias to reduce confusion I would feel obligated, for honesty sake, to clearly state who I am and why I am using an alias.
It is possible that ECAF may be unable or unwilling to allow me to take on such a specific role as arbitrator, in which case, I will “play ball”, get my feet wet and help the current arbitrators as best as I can within the confines of their predetermined “standard guidelines”. In this case, however, when able to do so, I would make available alternative arbitration services apart from ECAF to perform the more specific functions outlined above. After all, I expect to see lots of specialized arbitration services on EOS, within ECAF or otherwise. Arbitrational competition will be great for EOS and allowing users to name an arbitrator of choice remains crucial for true liberty within EOS governance.
ECAF could take this to mean, “we can’t accept this guys application because he might create competition for us later.” I seriously doubt that ECAF would ever abuse their power in such disservice to the EOS community; for if I did not have faith in the integrity of ECAF, I would not apply to join them in the first place. Besides, the hope is that my plan to specialize arbitration for a target market of EOS users will be compatible within scope of ECAF and/or the scope of ECAF will be altered to become compatible. While on a personal level, I feel the current model of consent could be improved; EOS is consensual for all users as it stands. As mentioned above, I have no problem hearing a case involving individuals each having consented to an agreement. While I prefer to offer arbitrational services as described above, I would be perfectly capable of ruling on a case involving a constitutional infraction without an injured party.
Anarchy in Arbitration
I do not believe government has a right to violently rule over the life, property, mind or body of individuals without consent. I have actually come to see that they do not rule over everyone without consent, rather they have various means of extracting consent. The most obvious being threats of violent imprisonment and perhaps the least obvious being through the use of a legal name, which you may be surprised to know does not belong to you. Essentially governments own all legal names so when someone claims to own, have, or be a legal name, (government property) they are consenting to be ruled over by legality, and thus be held responsible for violating legal statutes and codes. There are many other methods of tricking or frightening individuals into consenting to modern government authority but this is EOS. While I have outlined how the method of voluntary consent in EOS could be improved, as it stands, EOS is a moral mountain range above and beyond the trickery and violence of old-school governance systems. To say I am excited to see how it develops would be quite the understatement.
Anarchy simply means “without rulers” and I don’t know about you, but I do not require a ruler to live morally, thus I am an anarchist. Many people are confused by the word and depending on your definition of anarchist I may or may not identify with it. That being said, I have no problem with binding dispute resolution for violations of contracts between voluntary parties. If two or more consenting adults agree to something, and then one party violates the agreement, using arbitration to come to a resolution and offer reasonable restitution to the injured parties is really more or less, just reinforcing natural law. In the real world, when one individual intentionally screws over another, especially for profit, there are natural consequences. I don’t mean governments or courts; natural law is much more fundamental, a universal code of causality. If Tom violates the generally agreeable, yet unspoken, non-aggression principle by punching Bob in the face, Bob is liable to dish out some natural consequences. You could wonder if maybe Bob deserved it, but this is just meant to be a quick example of Natural Law and not a long tangent down the rabbit hole. Some, less than moral individuals, have taken advantage of societies general inability to let Natural law run its course on Blockchains, but thanks to EOS, technology has finally begun to catch up.
I don’t know of any blockchain that can be used to actually punch anyone in the face and while it could be used to hire mercenaries, this is not a Blockchain thing so much as it is a money thing. So if Tom takes possession of property that rightfully belongs to Bob, I believe Bob should have, at his disposal, the tools needed to establish natural law and natural consequences and EOS provides those tools in the form of arbitration. The same goes for violating a voluntary agreement. I believe EOS arbitration could and should establish natural law, nothing more and nothing less.
My Beliefs and My Promise
The above is an outline of my beliefs as they relate to arbitration and EOS. The statements were made honestly and could be interpreted to reflect what I may prefer to do in a given situation. It would, however, be irresponsible to take the above to imply what I would or wouldn’t do, what I will or will not do or any other false certainties. My beliefs are my own, and while cognitive dissonance keeps me actively avoiding simultaneously conflicting beliefs, I believe in EOS too. As no single man has the power to change EOS without community support, there may come a day as arbitrator when I am expected to perform an arbitrational duty in which I find morally questionable. I hope the day never comes, but as far as I am aware, if my arbitrational duty conflicts with personal beliefs, I should clarify my conflict of interest, apologize for being unable to fairly hear said case and politely recuse myself as arbitrator for that case. If such a situation ever does arise, I have no reason to expect it to be a common occurrence.
I appreciate the communities’ support in my quest for arbitrational acceptance. If you do not think I would make a good arbitrator, I would thank you for any honest feedback as to why. Any public statements of support in the EOS arbitration nomination group and/or GOV channel would be helpful and appreciated. Thanks!
You can find me on telegram answering to Dylan. Username: @Dwschuma
My Relevant Published Articles: