Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 11:22:39PM -0000, Paul Cotton wrote, in reply to 
John Berryhill:
> > one's client.  Apparently, some former DRP's have no scruples when it comes
> > to ignoring one of a lawyer's primary ethical obligations.
> 
> I understand your points entirely - the problem is that such discrepancy
> exists between forums in the first place, not that lawyers may choose to
> exploit that discrepancy (as their paying clients would expect).

The fact that there is a discrepancy illustrates a strong bias on
eResolutions part, not bias on the part of the other providers (which,
at 82% and 82.9% in favor of plaintiffs were essentially equal). 

Many people don't understand the simple statistical fact that an 82%
conviction rate says absolutely nothing about the quality of the system:
the system is designed to deal with obvious cases, and so a high rate of
success for plaintiffs is the expected (and desired) result.  Similarly,
you cannot judge the quality of a doctor by the survival rate of his
patients: a great doctor that takes only difficult cases might have a
50% survival rate for his patients; a lousy doctor that primarily takes
easy cases might have a 95% recovery rate.  If you went by the
statistics you would go to the lousy doctor every time, and be part of
his 5% failure rate. 

The fact that the other two providers had almost identical conviction
rates is actually an indication that they were following more objective
criteria than eResolution. 

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html