Eru,
We have the provision that members get to vote whether to uphold a jury's recommendation to ban someone.
But that vote is fairly straighforward - yes/no - and the jury will be more restricted in what they can and cannot do because we intend to lay out pretty explicitly what sorts of things a person can be banned for.
Arbitrations are more open-ended. Every case is likely to result in a different kind of decision. If a poster involved in an arbitration has a decision made against them ... as was the case here where one poster's right to access a forum has been disenabled ... it should not be terribly complicated to figure out the circumstances under which they might appeal that decision.
In a regular judicial appeals process, not all decisions can be appealled automatically. There have to be grounds for an appeal, and maybe our resident attorneys can advise us in the regard.
But for the members as a whole to challenge an arbitration decision ... that will be more complicated. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it will be more complicated.
Perhaps we should begin by defining what sorts of decisions legitimately affect the whole board, rather than just the posters involved.
Something that originated in the Bike Racks and moved to an arbitration would probably be excluded, i.e. disputes between individual posters would not likely affect the whole board. But where an arbitration has been requested because a non-bannable offense has been committed (as was the case here) then there is potential for more people to be affected by the decision.
What ideas do you have about this? Like ... categories of offenses where the jury decides a penality for one person but other people are affected tangentially.
Jn