disputants

Rather, what is most often of paramount importance is just that a case is settled, so that the disputants can move on with their lives.

Judges are not free to say to disputants that they are X% likely to win their claim.

This means that when we witness a dispute between people about an issue, we are unable to reliably and provably evaluate the disputants meta-level reasoning.

Reasonable people can disagree, and civility demands providing disputants with the benefit of the doubt, which is institutionalized in the courts.

At worst, one group would genocide the other, but it wouldn't spread beyond the disputants.

More troubling is when pre-state mechanisms of dispute resolution can be end-run by disputants trying to enlist the state on their side.

This may be a front for infighting within the Bayes Council, or it may be that the disputants have too much spare time.

Plus their time is limited, so they will tend to pick cases with broader legal consequences that will impact more than the disputants.

At one time, the disputants would take their dispute to an agreed-upon person who was acceptable to both and had a reputation for fair-decision-making.

In general, disputants in civil litigation have to provide complete transparency.

My original point was to call attention to the inappropriate tone of one of the disputants, not participate in more natural language pedantry on the Internet.

The bounds of the disputation are up to the disputants.

Anyways: net-net: if "judge.me" goes away, then disputants will either agree on some other arbitrator (like AAA) or end up in court.

Getting an impartial third-party engaged (and one who doesn't have a stake in future relationship(s) with the disputants) can have a hugely useful "unsticking" function.

(You mean "prove original authorship" rather than "prove prior art".) The act of publishing might create a reliable record of first authorship, for example if the material becomes quoted or replicated in third-party systems with timestamps not trivially changeable by the disputants.

The only kind of dispute resolution was mutually-assured destruction via criminal-like prosecution, basically "If I think you've been trying to cheat me out of something, I can get government goons to beat you up, for theft or whatever." And the government goons often beat up both disputants, for good measure.