board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Jury Room and Appeals Process

Post Reply   Page 1 of 3  [ 43 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 3 »
Author Message
Eruname
Post subject: Jury Room and Appeals Process
Posted: Sat 26 Mar , 2005 12:49 am
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
I'm really not sure where I should be putting this. I'm not allowed to post in the arbitration thread that just went on, I'm not sure if I'm even allowed to start a thread in the Jury Room regarding its processes, and there's no general Charter discussion thread to reply in. Hopefully the Business Room will work for this.

In the arbitration thread Voronwe posted this statement:
Quote:
We should have some kind of provision for appeals if a party is unhappy with a decision
I completely agree with this (but I have a feeling he only meant the parties involved and not outsiders) as there is one small part of the decision that I would have liked to appeal but of course I have no way of doing so. At some point in the Constitution Convention will there be an opportunity to discuss this? Do others think this would be a good idea?

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 26 Mar , 2005 12:55 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "appeal," Eru, as you weren't involved in the case. I believe that Wilko is the only one who could appeal the decision, as it went "against" him.

If you want to discuss something about the decision, why not go ahead here?


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 26 Mar , 2005 12:59 am
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
Technically, I think all the members of this board were involved in the case because it was generally about the privacy of this board and the possibility of revealing information that members have posted here. This wasn't a dispute between a few people. This was a board-wide issue and affects all posters.
Quote:
If you want to discuss something about the decision, why not go ahead here?
Because this isn't the place and also because the decision is over and final. There is no allowance for appeals at this point so discussing this would be a moot point.

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 26 Mar , 2005 1:02 am
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Just as an objective outsider (which I have really really really tried to remain in this case) - I think anyone who posted in the thread(s) that ***** threatened to copy and paste is involved in the case, as they would be affected by his actions. Since those thread(s) are being (have been) restored to the Turf, where he can make good on his threats, it is especially so. They should have a chance to edit their posts before he is given access to them again, or appeal the decision to give him access to those posts again.

Last edited by Estel on Sat 26 Mar , 2005 1:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 26 Mar , 2005 1:02 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Eru, our decision affected Wilko's case--nothing else. It was based on the rules of this board that are in place now. It didn't change any of those rules--it couldn't.

If there is some issue related to board privacy that you want to discuss, again, why not discuss it? There is certainly nothing that should prevent you.


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 26 Mar , 2005 1:07 am
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Quote:
It was based on the rules of this board that are in place now
There weren't any rules about privacy in place until this case. Rules were made with the decision of the jury. Rules that basically said, this may be a closed board, but anything outside the Invites forum may be disseminated (sp?).

Perhaps the non-existant appeals process is being invoked to address this issue, rather than the issue of Wilko.

Having a three person jury decide the privacy rules of the board is not something that is going to make anyone happy.


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 26 Mar , 2005 1:08 am
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
Primula_Baggins wrote:
Eru, our decision affected *****'s case--nothing else. It was based on the rules of this board that are in place now. It didn't change any of those rules--it couldn't.
I respectfully disagree. I believe that the decision affects any poster who posted in that thread that has been restored to the Turf, especially those posters who held the belief that what they said there would be kept in confidence.

I will be working with Estel to notify all those who posted in that thread that they should review their posts to be certain that they wouldn't mind information being dispersed to non-members as I feel that we've now established that while passing on information isn't condoned it can be done without negative consequences for the poster that chooses to do so.

As a side note, I didn't post anything in that thread that I felt needed to be removed, so this isn't coming from me being personally worried about my posts.
Quote:
If there is some issue related to board privacy that you want to discuss, again, why not discuss it? There is certainly nothing that should prevent you.
I've already done so on the privacy threads.

edit:
Estel wrote:
Having a three person jury decide the privacy rules of the board is not something that is going to make anyone happy.
I agree with this. It does seem to me that policy was just made by a jury.

edit #2: I want to make clear that I'm not trying to attack the jury's decision or get it repealed. I'm not acting with scorn. I just want some things ironed out.

I'd rather ths not become a discussion about the arbitration and its decision, but a discussion about an appeals procedure in the future.

Last edited by Eruname on Sat 26 Mar , 2005 1:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 26 Mar , 2005 1:14 am
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
Also, should we be mentioning the names of the people involved with the arbitration? I believe they were being edited out elsewhere and I want to be sure of what we need to do here in this thread. I've kept all names out...I think! ;)

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 26 Mar , 2005 1:16 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Alassante_Estel wrote:
Quote:
It was based on the rules of this board that are in place now
There weren't any rules about privacy in place until this case. Rules were made with the decision of the jury. Rules that basically said, this may be a closed board, but anything outside the Invites forum may be disseminated (sp?).
Estel, what rules were made by this case? None. It can't be done that way.

If we'd applied a privacy rule to this whole board, that would have been making a rule that didn't exist. That would have been "deciding the privacy rules of the whole board." The fact is that at this point there are no privacy rules that apply to the whole board. We can't find and apply rules that don't exist.

The only rule about privacy on this board covers only the Invite forum. We applied it.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 26 Mar , 2005 1:44 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5176
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Quote:
edit #2: I want to make clear that I'm not trying to attack the jury's decision or get it repealed. I'm not acting with scorn. I just want some things ironed out.
Eru, I appreciate that, and actually share some of your concerns (particularly about having a jury be only three people, as I have repeatedly said, and about an appeal process for anyone directly affected by a decision.

Unfortunately, others have acted with scorn towards our decision, which makes me very disappointed and sad. We did not chose to be jurors, and we did the best we could in what clearly was going to be a contentious issue (despite the lack of antagonism between the actual parties). We put a lot of effort into doing the best job that we could, it hurts that that effort has been treated with scorn. Why would anyone agree to serve on a jury and put all that work in, only to be treated such?

What I want to emphasize the most, however, is what Prim has already said. We did NOT do is create a new rule. In fact that is what we refused to do. There has never been a rule here about not revealing information other then at the Invite forum. As we pointed out in our decision, the question of whether such a rule existed was specifically asked (in bold) by the person in question, in a thread in which all of the people who are now complaining about us not finding that such a rule existed participated in, and no one challenged the explicit statement that no such rule existed. How could we then have been expected to follow such a non-existent rule?


Top
Profile Quote
Ethel
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 26 Mar , 2005 1:53 am
The Pirate's Daughter
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Four Corners
 
Primula_Baggins wrote:
The only rule about privacy on this board covers only the Invite forum. We applied it.
I agree with this. I understand that some people have had an expectation that anything said on an invitation-only board would remain private. But there are also plenty of people who don't have that expectation - see the differing opinions expressed in the Confidentiality of the Board thread.

It is explicitly spelled out in the Invites forum that the contents of that forum are to be considered confidential, and that a breach of that confidentiality would result in losing access to the forum. If that is true for the board as a whole, we could not find anywhere that it was explicitly spelled out. It certainly wasn't mentioned to me at the time of registration. Moreover, we have plenty of evidence that matters on this board have, in fact, been shared with non members - and not by wilko185.

For those who want strict boardwide confidentialy to be an enforceable rule, I would suggest that a poll addressing the issue be posted without delay. If there had been a majority ruling that sharing any board content was grounds for suspending access to the board, please believe me when I say I would have voted differently.


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 26 Mar , 2005 2:00 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
V, is the verdict being discussed somewhere? You mention it being treated with scorn and I'd like to see that being the case because I'm very surprised by that. :Q I thought you guys and gals were amazing and you deserve an immense amount of respect for what you did. :bow: And I completely agree with the privacy policy issue - we can't ask jurors to enforce rules that people assume or want, we can only ask them to enforce rules that exist.


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 26 Mar , 2005 2:04 am
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
I wasn't contesting that, and I am sorry if it seemed that way. My perception, in reading the final decision (which I also don't contest, btw) was that it had been decided that privacy could only be expected in the Invite forum, both in the past, and in the future.

Because of that, I've posted rules for the England forum, for anyone who may have read the decision the same way I did, and decide that since the privacy rule only applies to the invite forum, they could disseminate conversations that happened in the ToE.

It's been stated by many on this board, including myself, time and again, that the best thing about this board is the complete honesty and transparency we have with each other. If others percieve, as I did, that a new rule has been put in place in which any post outside of the Invites forum can be shared offboard, then the posting styles could drastically change.

I am not not not not not saying that you guys made a mistaken decision, nor am I questioning the decision made.

What I am saying is that in reading the post about the decision, the perception is, is that it has been formalized that privacy on this private board, is non-existant except in one forum. What I am saying, is that this perception could cause a lot of problems. Perceptions were the problem on TORC, and they continue to be the problem here - but here, we can talk about it and work it out.

I am sorry that you guys feel scorned about this. That was never the intention in my posts, and my apologies if they made you feel that way.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 26 Mar , 2005 2:08 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5176
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Yov, I have PMed you.

Estel, no I have not felt scorned by anything that you have written.


Top
Profile Quote
Ethel
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 26 Mar , 2005 2:08 am
The Pirate's Daughter
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Four Corners
 
Alassante_Estel wrote:
What I am saying is that in reading the post about the decision, the perception is, is that it has been formalized that privacy on this private board, is non-existant except in one forum.
But it hasn't, Estel. I don't know how else to say it. That was the only hard and fast rule we could find. We had to work with what we had. That does not preclude new rules being implemented, or implicit "understandings" being formalized into rules. We were trying very hard not to make new rules, but to apply the only one we were aware of.

To me it would have been incredibly high-handed of us to say something like, "Well, it's not really a rule, but some people here believe that everything on an invitation only board should be confidential, and the people who believe that are more important than the people who don't. Therefore wilko should be banned - not because he has shared anything, but because he has said that he might share something if he thought it was the right thing to do."

Is that what you hoped we would say?

I remind you that wilko has not actually shared anything from this board - only said that, if he thought it would "clear the air" or whatever, he would make his own judgment about whether sharing something was a good idea.

I thought we made a pretty strong statement by continuing wilko's ban on the Invites forum. After all, he has not actually broken the rule - we just thought there was a reasonable chance that he might do so.

Last edited by Ethel on Sat 26 Mar , 2005 2:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 26 Mar , 2005 2:16 am
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
I understand that now, with you guys telling me, but I honestly would not have if we hadn't had this conversation. Now that it's been clarified, I'll back out. I understand that you guys worked hard, and I appreciate that.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 26 Mar , 2005 2:25 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5176
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Estel, I don't understand the fear that suddenly people on this board are going to start maliciously revealing information. If people wanted to do that, they could have done so before without anyone knowing. In fact, rumour has it that that has happened, though I don't know whether that is true. But people's privacy continues to be protected by the fact that most if not all of the people on this board are honourable people who do not seek to hurt others. That is what will protect member's privacy, not some unenforceable rule that never has existed anyway. In my opinion, if such a rule is implemented (and there is nothing that says that you can't start a binding poll on the question, particularly since you are an admin), the most likely result would be that it would make it more likely that anyone who already had the inclination to act maliciously would do so out of spite then anything else.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 26 Mar , 2005 2:37 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Voronwe makes a good point. If there were such a rule, honorable people would obey it--but honorable people already don't spread hurtful or deeply private information from this board.

People who are less than honorable are unlikely to be stopped by a rule, particularly one as unenforceable as this would be.

The only conclusion I can come to (and I came to it many years ago) is that I should never post anything that I would rather not see spread beyond the place where I post it. No Internet message board is certifiably confidential, no matter what rules or restrictions are in place.

This doesn't keep me from having fun or making good friends. It does help me keep my peace of mind.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 26 Mar , 2005 4:27 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
I don't know where people are getting the idea that the jury decision created a rule that there could be no privacy in the future. This is a bizarre conclusion, if I may say so.

All they decided was that at the time when *** threatened to share info, the only existing rule about sharing info concerned the Invite Forum. This was based on statements which original members and admins had made to *** and which no one with knowledge or authority contradicted.

It is up to the members, through voting, or through the convention work which will also be put to a vote, to decide what the rules will or will not be for the future.

But perhaps there is general confusion about the difference between legislative and judicial functions. In the American system - and I believe the European system is like ours in this regard - the courts don't make the laws, they only interpret them. No laws, nothing to interpret.

The courts don't enforce the law either. That is an executive function, which in our case means a function of the current admins. Failure to enforce a jury decision would, I would think, be grounds for removing an admin from office. But we haven't gotten that far in the convention. ;)

This discussion alerts me to the fact that we probably need some clarification of these broad functions in the charter (or Red Book). Lord Morningstar had talked about this aspect of it early on, and I've just been trying to grind through the loopholes in existing laws before taking on the philosophical issues. But we shouldn't forget to clarify things like this when the time is ripe.

Voronwe is right that we need some kind of appeals process. I am certainly open to discussing this here in the Business Forum ... 1. because everything we have done so far concerning disputes was done here in the business forum, and 2. because it looks like it will be awhile before the convention advances that far.

Estel: Because of that, I've posted rules for the England forum

And will put them to a vote of the membership, I hope, because no jury in the future is going to ban a person "because Estel said so." Not to be snide, but there has been a process up until now ... half-baked as it might be ... and I think it is of overwhelming importance to perceived fairness that process be continued in the future.

Estel, the privacy issue for England - at least the part of it that admins control - is coming up directly on the convention agenda. I personally don't mind if you take interim action to ensure privacy in that forum, and probably all those who visit that forum would appreciate it, but ultimately it will have to be the membership who decides what the penalties will be in that forum.

I can only urge the committee members to put their noses to the grindstone and work through some of these issues until we get the system that we want.

Meanwhile, I think that the solution which best preserves the rights of all members now and in the future is the solution that Eru proposed. Let people delete any regretable posts they have made. We know that the board leaks like a sieve and we've know that for awhile. Member-moderated means that every member is responsible for him/herself, right? So, much as perfect privacy might be comfortable, we no longer have it and I see no way of getting it back shy of banning everyone who joined in 2005. :scratch

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 26 Mar , 2005 4:53 am
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
Can I respectfully ask that the issues about board confidentiality be taken to the appropriate thread about board confidentiality?:

http://www.phpbber.com/phpbb/viewtopic. ... um=board77

I fear this thread has strayed way off its main point: the possibility of an appeals procedure for jury decisions.

I'll be replying to some of what was posted here in that thread.

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 3  [ 43 posts ]
Return to “Business Room” | Jump to page 1 2 3 »
Jump to: