Are the Tribunal details on how they came to the decision made open and transparent to the community, or is it "top-down"?
As mentioned in the Narrative Manifesto:
"We adopt a decentralized approach; to replace top-down management of users and content with a system where the entire community is involved in setting standards, curating content, and reducing the influence of bad actors."
To avoid acting as "Big Social" I think Tribunals will have to be naturally open processes to allow the community to see how "final truth" is approached. If it's a closed-door 'philosopher kings' type of process, Narrative should resist moving in that direction. (in my humble opinion)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm looking at Completed Tribunals, and I don't see any notes, no community involvement, and no transparency. Hopefully, this will be taken as constructive feedback to make a stronger community.
Democratic Tribunals like Canada's Human Rights Tribunals, have all decisions published, and how each decision was arrived at.
(In brief: Niche tribunals must be democratic, open, and transparent to satisfy Narrative's own manifesto)