Misplaced Pages

#813186

40-731: The Independent Betting Adjudication Service (IBAS) , founded in 1998, is a third party organisation that settles disputes between gambling establishments registered with IBAS and their customers in the United Kingdom. The organisation, which was originally part of the Sporting Life's Green Seal service, was formerly known as the Independent Betting Arbitration Service . The Service dropped Arbitration from its name in 2007, opting instead to use Adjudication to better reflect its role after

80-462: A case study on one of their past rulings. These case studies provide gamblers with examples of previous disputes to help prevent future problems between gamblers and operators. The studies focus on aspects of gambling that are often confusing or misinterpreted. Case studies are available for several betting options offered to UK gamblers. One football study published stated that all football bets are based on 90 minutes, unless otherwise specified by

120-411: A ' bounded rationality ' – in other words, that most judgments are made using fast acting heuristics that work well in every day situations, but are not amenable to decision-making about complex subjects such as climate change. Anchoring has been particularly identified as relevant in climate change controversies as individuals are found to be more positively inclined to believe in climate change if

160-418: A case because there was no "actual controversy" between the parties; thus, any opinion rendered would be advisory. State courts are not subject to U.S. Constitution's Article III case or controversy limitation. Many state courts are barred from issuing advisory opinions by their own constitutions, although there are often specific exceptions to these limitations. Some states , like Rhode Island , permit

200-698: A controversy is a purely civil proceeding. For example, the Case or Controversy Clause of Article Three of the United States Constitution ( Section 2 , Clause 1) states that "the judicial Power shall extend ... to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party". This clause has been deemed to impose a requirement that United States federal courts are not permitted to cases that do not pose an actual controversy—that is, an actual dispute between adverse parties which

240-429: A credibility heuristic. Similar effects on reasoning are also seen in non-scientific controversies, for example in the gun control debate in the United States . As with other controversies, it has been suggested that exposure to empirical facts would be sufficient to resolve the debate once and for all. In computer simulations of cultural communities, beliefs were found to polarize within isolated sub-groups, based on

280-496: A result of a lack of confidence on the part of the disputants – as implied by Benford's law of controversy , which only talks about lack of information ("passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available"). For example, in analyses of the political controversy over anthropogenic climate change , which is exceptionally virulent in the United States , it has been proposed that those who are opposed to

320-456: A statistically optimized system for decision making. Experiments and computational models in multisensory integration have shown that sensory input from different senses is integrated in a statistically optimal way, in addition, it appears that the kind of inferences used to infer single sources for multiple sensory inputs uses a Bayesian inference about the causal origin of the sensory stimuli. As such, it appears neurobiologically plausible that

360-597: Is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available. In other words, it claims that the less factual information is available on a topic, the more controversy can arise around that topic – and the more facts are available, the less controversy can arise. Thus, for example, controversies in physics would be limited to subject areas where experiments cannot be carried out yet, whereas controversies would be inherent to politics, where communities must frequently decide on courses of action based on insufficient information. Controversies are frequently thought to be

400-483: Is capable of being resolved by the [court]. In addition to setting out the scope of the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, it also prohibits courts from issuing advisory opinions , or from hearing cases that are either unripe , meaning that the controversy has not arisen yet, or moot , meaning that the controversy has already been Benford's law of controversy , as expressed by the astrophysicist and science fiction author Gregory Benford in 1980, states: Passion

440-678: The Inter-American Court of Human Rights enables it to respond to consultations submitted by agencies and member states of the Organization of American States regarding the interpretation of the American Convention on Human Rights or other instruments governing human rights in the Americas . It is also empowered to give advice on domestic laws and proposed legislation, and whether or not they are compatible with

SECTION 10

#1732772510814

480-715: The Supreme Court of India to provide its advice on certain matters. This procedure is called "Presidential Reference" . According to Article 143 of the Constitution of India , the President of India may refer to the Supreme Court of India, a question of law or fact which, he thinks, is of public importance. It is not binding on the Supreme Court to answer questions raised in the reference. For an analysis of this provision, see 1. If at any time it appears to

520-419: The global warming controversy context – in spite of identical evidence presented, the pre-existing beliefs (or evidence presented first) has an overwhelming effect on the beliefs formed. In addition, the preferences of the agent (the particular rewards that they value) also cause the beliefs formed to change – this explains the biased assimilation (also known as confirmation bias ) shown above. This model allows

560-571: The judiciary for an advisory opinion. In other countries or specific jurisdictions, courts may be prohibited from issuing advisory opinions. The International Court of Justice is empowered to give advisory opinions under Chapter IV of its Statute (an annex to the United Nations Charter ) when requested to do so by certain organs or agencies of the United Nations . These opinions are non-binding. The advisory function of

600-437: The reference question mechanism is equivalent to an advisory opinion. The Supreme Court Act gives the federal Cabinet the power to refer questions to the Supreme Court of Canada on any questions of law. The Supreme Court then has jurisdiction to hold a hearing on the reference, just like an appeal. The Attorney General of Canada participates in a federal reference. The provincial and territorial Attorneys General have

640-465: The Constitution (1977); Four Questions Referred under Article 55 of the Constitution (1977); Constitutional Reference; In re Article 55 of the Constitution (2003); Constitutional Reference; In re Dual Nationality and Other Questions (2004); In the Matter of Article 55 & 45 (and Article 36 & 40) of the Constitution (2007); and In the Matter of Article 55 & 45 (and Article 36 & 40) of

680-519: The Constitution (2008). In Constitutional Reference; In re Dual Nationality and Other Questions (2004), Chief Justice Barry Connell made the following remarks in relation to the nature of article 55: The United States Supreme Court has determined that the case or controversy requirement found in Article Three of the United States Constitution prohibits United States federal courts from issuing advisory opinions. Accordingly, before

720-697: The Convention's provisions. The High Court of Australia is prohibited by the Constitution of Australia from issuing advisory opinions; a binding determination requires a controversy between two or more parties. There have been occasions in Australia's legal history, such as the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis , when politicians have solicited informal advice from Justices of the High Court in their personal capacity. Under Canadian law ,

760-634: The Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices." In other words, Jay informed President Washington that the President ought to turn to the Attorney General and perhaps other Cabinet secretaries when they require legal advice concerning American law. Over a century later the Court dismissed

800-421: The President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon. 2. The President may, notwithstanding anything in

840-516: The abolishment of the UK's gambling tax. Again, IBAS saw another increase in cases to panel, this time as a result of the 2005 Gambling Act. In 2007, nearly 1700 disputes were handled by the IBAS panel, 372 of which were of the internet variety. IBAS claims to have awarded customers over £365,000 from dispute resolutions in 2007. There are also instances when IBAS rules in favour of the establishment, rather than

SECTION 20

#1732772510814

880-481: The brain implements decision-making procedures that are close to optimal for Bayesian inference. Brocas and Carrillo propose a model to make decisions based on noisy sensory inputs, beliefs about the state of the world are modified by Bayesian updating, and then decisions are made based on beliefs passing a threshold. They show that this model, when optimized for single-step decision making, produces belief anchoring and polarization of opinions – exactly as described in

920-451: The court will hear a case, it must find that the parties have a tangible interest at stake in the matter, the issue presented must be "mature for judicial resolution" or ripe , and a justiciable issue must remain before the court throughout the course of the lawsuit. While this doctrine is still in full force, there has been a liberalization of these requirements in recent years. In a letter to President George Washington , replying to

960-408: The customer. IBAS will become involved in a dispute only after the gambling establishment and the customer(s) have made attempts to resolve the issue amongst themselves. If a deadlock remains, the dispute will be reviewed by IBAS if the following conditions are met: If the dispute merits involvement, IBAS will accept written statements describing the conflict from both parties involved. IBAS verifies

1000-417: The effect of adjudicating a specific legal case , but which merely legally advises on its opinion as to the constitutionality or interpretation of a law. The International Law Association is one such commission that provides non binding opinions and advisory documents regarding aspects of international law. Some countries have procedures by which the executive or legislative branches may refer questions to

1040-442: The enactment of the 2005 Gambling Act . IBAS deals with several sectors in the realm of gambling. The sectors include: Since its inception, IBAS has been handling the majority of gambling disputes in the UK. In 2000, the first year that IBAS was fully operational, approximately 800 disputes went to panel, a number which remained relatively constant the following year in 2001. In 2002, the number of cases to panel rose to 1126 due to

1080-481: The establishment has upheld their own rules and regulations for gambling. If no rule that covers the dispute exists, IBAS will set forth its own rule based on what would be acceptable by industry standards. Both parties are bound by IBAS's ruling. One objective of the UK Gambling Commission is to ensure that all gamblers are treated fairly in accordance with the rules and regulations established for

1120-566: The gambling industry. This includes disputes between customers and gambling operators. By law, any sector in the realm of gambling under the jurisdiction of the Gambling Commission must use an independent, third party to resolve disputes. Because IBAS is recognised as the third party adjudicator for nearly all bookmakers in the UK, the Gambling Commission works closely with IBAS to reduce the number of disputes between customers and gambling operators. From time to time, IBAS publishes

1160-753: The governor to certify questions on the constitutionality of laws to the state supreme court. Also, some states require their supreme court to give advisory opinions on particular matters, such as whether proposed amendments to the state constitution violate the U.S. Constitution. Statutory or constitutional provisions in Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota allow their highest courts to issue advisory opinions in some circumstances. Several other states, including Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, and Vermont, once allowed for advisory opinions by statute or constitution, but have since abandoned

1200-550: The interpretation or effect of any provision of this Constitution which has arisen or appears to the Cabinet likely to arise, and the Supreme Court shall pronounce in open court its opinion on the question." This article has been put to use on six occasions, in the following cases, in which the Cabinet sought an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court on hypothetical cases relating to an interpretation of constitutional provisions: Three Questions Referred under Articles 36 & 55 of

1240-405: The mistaken belief of the community's unhindered access to ground truth. Such confidence in the group to find the ground truth is explicable through the success of wisdom of the crowd based inferences. However, if there is no access to the ground truth, as there was not in this model, the method will fail. Bayesian decision theory allows these failures of rationality to be described as part of

Independent Betting Adjudication Service - Misplaced Pages Continue

1280-480: The outside temperature is higher, if they have been primed to think about heat, and if they are primed with higher temperatures when thinking about the future temperature increases from climate change. In other controversies – such as that around the HPV vaccine , the same evidence seemed to license inference to radically different conclusions. Kahan et al. explained this by the cognitive biases of biased assimilation and

1320-521: The practice. Advisory opinions should not be confused with certified questions by one court to another, which are permissible. U.S. federal courts, when confronted with real cases or controversies in which the federal court's decision will turn in whole or in part on a question of state law (e.g. diversity cases under the Erie doctrine or issues in which federal law incorporates state law by reference, such as exemptions in bankruptcy ), occasionally ask

1360-463: The president's request for such an opinion, then-Chief Justice John Jay replied that it would violate the separation of powers for the Supreme Court to provide such an opinion, noting that the president could rely on advice from anyone within the executive branch under Article Two of the United States Constitution which expressly permits the President of the United States to "require

1400-428: The production of controversy to be seen as a consequence of a decision maker optimized for single-step decision making, rather than a result of limited reasoning in the bounded rationality of Daniel Kahneman . Advisory opinion An advisory opinion of a court or other government authority, such as an election commission , is a decision or opinion of the body but which is non-binding in law and does not have

1440-487: The proviso to article 131, refer a dispute of the kind mentioned in the said proviso to the Supreme Court for opinion and the Supreme Court shall, after hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon. Article 55 of the Constitution of Nauru provides: "The President or a Minister may, in accordance with the approval of the Cabinet , refer to the Supreme Court for its opinion any question concerning

1480-401: The right to intervene, and interested parties may apply to intervene. The parties make detailed written submissions to the Court, which then holds a hearing. It typically reserves its decision, later releasing a written opinion. The Court has a discretion to refuse to answer questions which are too ambiguous or will not provide an answer with any meaning. The Provincial governments and some of

1520-487: The scientific consensus do so because they don't have enough information about the topic. A study of 1540 US adults found instead that levels of scientific literacy correlated with the strength of opinion on climate change , but not on which side of the debate that they stood. The puzzling phenomenon of two individuals being able to reach different conclusions after being exposed to the same facts has been frequently explained (particularly by Daniel Kahneman) by reference to

1560-463: The territories have a similar power to refer questions to their highest appeal courts for an opinion. This power is set out in their respective provincial laws defining the powers of the appellate courts. The Supreme Court Act gives an automatic right of appeal from a reference decision of a provincial Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. In India , the President of India can request

1600-438: The use of the words outright, win trophy or another suitable phrase that leaves no doubt as to the preferred settlement criteria. Bettors need to specify which option they desire prior to placing the intended wager, otherwise, the bet is assumed to be based on 90 minutes of play. Disputes In the theory of law , a controversy differs from a legal case ; while legal cases include all suits, criminal as well as civil ,

#813186