board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Arbitration Regarding Revealing Information to Non-Members

Post Reply   Page 1 of 1  [ 1 post ]
Author Message
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject: Arbitration Regarding Revealing Information to Non-Members
Posted: Tue 29 Mar , 2005 3:14 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
The following is the unanimous opinion of the jury.

INTRODUCTION

This is the first “arbitration” in board77 history. As such there is no precedent upon which we the jury can fall back upon to guide our actions. Moreover, our task is complicated by the fact that we are called to interpret rules that have not been clearly defined (and that, ironically, are likely to not be relevant in the near future, if the board opens as most members seem to desire). It is fortunate, perhaps, that in this first arbitration the parties involved are not particularly antagonistic to each other. We are called by one member, ******, to determine the proper ongoing response to a situation in which another member, ********, told a third member, *******, that he intended to pass on information from the board to a non-member, ****.

The jury is unanimous in its hope that this type of situation will become a moot point in the near future, once the constitution (perhaps dubbed the “Red Book of board77") is completed and ratified. Nonetheless, we take our task seriously, both because we believe that it is important in a community that the rules be uniformly and consistently enforced, and as our role as “arbitration guinea pigs.” We hope that future juries can build upon what we have done, using our efforts as something of a guide (and learning from our inevitable mistakes).


STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

The basic facts in this matter are not in dispute, and can be quickly summarized.

***** explained that his understanding of the confidentiality rules of board77 were that revealing information in invite threads was prohibited, but that revealing the information in other parts of the board was up to the discretion of the member. He pointed out that he specifically had stated that this was his understanding and asked if there was some other rule that he was unaware of, emphasizing this question in bold type. Further research by the jury and by ****** revealed that several members indicated that his understanding was correct, and no one contradicted those assurances, although several admins and original b77 members posted in the thread in question.

***** also explained that he has been friends with **** for about 3 years, and has met her quite a few times in person. He further explained that she did not understand why she had to be excluded from a community that contained some people that she considered good friends, does not believe that her relationship with ********* should matter, dislikes being talked about behind her back, and has heard some unkind things that have been said about her on board77.

***** spoke to **** about board77 on Thursday, March 17, 2005, at a TORC moot in Glasgow, Scotland, trying to explain that most of what had been said about her was positive, and the negative was no worse than that said about other people. Unfortunately, he mentioned something unflattering that she had apparently not heard before. He decided that he needed to either not discuss the subject with her at all, or tell her everything that had been said about her here.

Meanwhile, ******* had gone to the moot in Glasgow hoping to heal some of the hard feelings that exist between members of TORC and board77. Unfortunately, **** initially refused to speak with *******.

Both ******* and ***** agree that when they met on Saturday evening, March 19, 2005, he was very drunk and uncharacteristically brusque. He told ******* that he intended to tell **** everything that had been said about her at board77 and that since that included information on an invite thread he was giving her a chance to ban him before he had an opportunity to do so. While admitting that he was ruder than he would have liked, he indicates that he basically stands by his intention to do so. He explains that he frankly does not agree with the privacy ethos of this board.

*******, who was in an emotional state partly because of the negative interactions with **** and ***** and partly because her room reservations had been lost, sent a text message to an admin, *****, telling her what had happened and asking her to cancel *****’s permissions for the Invite forum. However, apparently because some of the information that he had threatened to reveal was not in the Invite forum, his permissions were cancelled for all of the forums except the Bike Racks forum, where an extensive discussion regarding this situation had developed. Member reaction ranged from wanting his membership rights completely restored to calls to “kick him out.” ****** called for an arbitration to help resolve the issue without it becoming too divisive.

This discussion sparked several more general (and generally productive) discussions about confidentiality on the board and opening the board. Meanwhile, *****’s permissions were restored to all the forums except the Invite forum, after the thread he started in the Turf forum about called "** ******** ** **** *****" (which had some discussion about ****) was moved to the Invite forum.

******* indicates that in retrospect she understands *****’s intention, and would prefer to see him not be punished in any way, and that we should rely on his honorable nature to comply with requests not to reveal information. However, in response to a direct question from the jury, ***** indicated that he could not guarantee that he would not reveal information from the invite thread to someone who was the subject of the invite thread, if the person gave what he considered to be valid reasons. ******* responded by requesting that ***** discuss revealing information in the invite forum with b77 members before doing so.


DISCUSSION

We enjoy an advantage that future juries will probably not get to have. The scope of our discussion has been laid out for us by ****** in her arbitration request. We suspect that that will not always be the case in the future. ****** asks us to answer three questions:


1. I would like the jury to decide whether threatening to reveal the contents of the invite forum should be considered the same as actually revealing it. That would determine whether the current 'rule' can be employed in this case.

2. If restriction of access to the Invite Forum is appropriate in this case, I would like the jury to decide how long the restriction should last.

3. Although I don’t believe that the jury can create by-laws, because we have no procedure yet for incorporating precedents into our by-laws, I believe that the jury can direct the Charter Committee to consider whether revelation of information from other forums should be addressed in the by-laws, and I would like the jury to do this if they decide it is appropriate.


We will answer these questions as best we can, indicating what actions need to be taken to effectuate our decision.


A. Invite Forum Permissions Should Be Suspended If It Can Be Shown That There Is a Clear and Present Danger That Invite Thread Information Will Be Revealed to Non-members.

The jury’s inclination is to respond to ******s first question in the negative: that threatening to reveal the contents of the invite forum should not be considered the same as actually revealing it. The jury also frankly has some sympathy for *****’s antipathy for the “privacy ethos” of this board. Nonetheless, the jury feels that if the rule against revealing information in invite threads is to have any meaning, it should be enforced in any circumstances in which it can be shown that there is a clear and present danger that invite thread information will be revealed. Otherwise, it would be like closing the barn door after the animals have already escaped.


B. *****’s Invite Forum Permissions Should Be Suspended Until He Is Willing To Guarantee That He Will Not Reveal the Information Therein to Non-members.

The jury feels that, based on *****’s actions, and his frank statements about his feelings and intentions, that there is a clear and present danger that he will reveal contents of the Invite forum if his permissions are restored. Therefore, the jury finds that his permissions should not be restored at this time. However, we also believe that there is and should be a presumption of good faith on the part of members. Therefore, we find that *****’s Invite forum permissions should be restored if and when he is willing to guarantee that he will not break the rule against revealing information in Invite threads to non-members.

We feel we must add, however, that we believe that *****’s position is a principled one, rather than one that is irresponsible or malicious. That is, he would breach the confidentiality of the Invites forum if and only if - in his judgment alone - he sincerely believed it was the proper, honest and helpful thing to do. We cannot help respecting this, even if his judgment ended up violating the one real rule of b77 (a rule which itself was only stated retroactively). Yet we are charged with the responsibility of enforcing the rules that have been adopted so far. To disregard those rules would help lead to the very anarchy that we all wish to avoid.


C. Since Information Outside the Invite Forum Is Not Confidential, No Action Protecting Such Information Should Be Taken and the “** ******** ** *** *****” Thread Should Be Immediately Moved Back to the Turf Forum.

The jury does not believe that it is in our purview to make completely new rules. It is clear that ***** was justified in believing that there is no existing rule against revealing information outside the Invite forum. The jury emphatically agrees that no such rule exists, either explicitly or by implication. None of the jurors were told upon registering that the contents of the board
were to be kept secret. The one board rule with respect to secrecy that has been explicitly communicated is that the "Invites" forum threads were not to be shared outside the forum. A reason was given for this - that people could not be expected to discuss a potential poster freely if their posts were going to be shared with the individual. Though the jurors all have personal issues with both the concept of a closed board and the process of invitation, under present circumstances this rule seems completely reasonable to us. However, this right of privacy clearly has never been meant to apply outside the Invite forum. Therefore, the jury holds that no additional restrictions shall be placed on *****’s membership at board77 as a result of this incident.

Furthermore, the jury holds that the “** ******** ** **** *****” thread should be immediately moved back to the Turf forum. Since the information in this thread was never confidential in the first place, no action should be taken to protect it from being revealed. There isn't any rule to justify keeping it hidden. ***** should not be denied the benefit of being able to continue that discussion since revealing information in that thread would not be against the rules anyway. Plus, anyone who really wanted to protect what they said in that thread from being revealed could have deleted it by now.


CONCLUSION

It is the jury’s feeling that, while the hurt feelings that have occurred in the course of this incident are unfortunate, the positive side is that it has helped spark needed discussion about issues important to board77's future. The jury recognizes that this is not a situation where “right” is all on one side. It is the jury’s hope that ******** will continue to be an active member of board77. The jury also hopes, frankly, that the “privacy ethos” of this board will not be an issue for very much longer.

The jury also wishes to commend the admins for their levelheaded and responsible responses to this situation. However, the jury does wish to warn against the type of extreme reactions that some members were expressing in the early discussion regarding this matter, particularly the calls to ban *****. The jury believes that such extreme reactions, particularly when made before all the facts are available, can be as damaging to the board as revealing confidential information. There was never any basis upon which to even consider the thought that banning ***** was an appropriate reaction.


DISPOSITION

********'s Invite forum permissions will continue to be suspended until such time as he agrees to abide by the rule against revealing invite thread information or the rule is abolished. No other restrictions will be placed on ********'s membership as a result of this incident. The “** ******** ** **** *****” thread will be immediately restored to the Turf forum.


Ethel
Primula_Baggins
Voronwe_the_Faithful


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 1  [ 1 post ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest”
Jump to: