board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

How to contest the decision of an admin - VOTING CLOSED!

Post Reply   Page 1 of 4  [ 78 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 3 4 »
Author Message
truehobbit
Post subject: How to contest the decision of an admin - VOTING CLOSED!
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 2:20 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
BALLOT

1. All admin decisions may be contested.

I accept this provision
A. Yes
B. No

2. Disputes of a personal nature involving an admin can be resolved at the Bike Racks or by regular Arbitration

I accept this provision
A. Yes
B. No

3. In more serious cases, like bannings, or a poster feeling treated unjustly when having their posting rights restricted, etc. there is a more formal case from the outset and the procedures are described in the article on Member Rights.

I accept this provision
A. Yes
B. No

4. Members may contest in the following way any admin decisions made while excercising the routine powers of admins, such as edits, moving threads, etc.

a. The member affected by the action contacts the admin by PM or email and requests that the action be reviewed

b. If the poster and the admin can reach an agreement between them, nothing else need be done. If the poster and the admin cannot agree, the poster can ask for an independent review.

c. The independent review will decide to overturn or uphold the decision.
(You vote on who should do the review in the next question.)

I accept all three steps of this provision:

A. Yes
B. I don't accept step [number(s) of step(s) you don't accept]

5. The Independent Review will be done by:

Please rank your choices:

A: Two other admins and one jury member
B: Two other admins and the mayor
C: One admin, one mayor, one jury member of the poster's choice
D: One admin, one jury member of the poster's choice, and the mayor gets to break a tie

#1 =
#2 =
#3 =
#4 =

Last edited by truehobbit on Tue 19 Apr , 2005 1:07 pm, edited 9 times in total.

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 2:41 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
There's not much to start with for the discussion on how to contest the decision of an admin. Jny could only glean one point from earlier general discussion, namely that there should be a public hearing (something we haven't established yet).

Jny added some thoughts of her own, and so did I, but basically, all is open on this point.

I'll add your contributions in green, and items which need a special decision in blue, as usual. :)

All in all, we need ideas for the following:

1. What kinds of decisions are subject to contest

(This of course depends on the results of the vote on the Powers of Admins.)

I had always thought that basically all decisions might be contested. If you think there are any that should not be subject to contest, which ones would that be?

I'm wondering whether different kinds of decisions need different ways of contesting them.

Contesting something that is the result of a routine action might be handled by just PMing the admin. Then, only if people can't agree on the question, the poster could ask for a hearing of his case.
(Needs awareness of admin that criticism is to be expected and not be taken personally.)

In more serious cases, like a poster feeling treated unjustly when having their posting rights restricted, it could be a more formal case from the outset.


A list of different kinds of decisions that might be contested:

- decisions made within the exercise of the routine powers
- forum restriction/temp bans
- things to do with the procedure in arbitrations/hearings on a ban
- immediate bans (I'm wondering whether someone "caught" trolling or spamming should have a right to appeal?)

2. How to do it:

- Public hearing in the jury room. (note: there isn't something like this
yet - all we have are arbitrations and bans)

- Do we need a special class of arbitrations for things involving admins
and the mayor? ) (Since the mayor's decisions should also be contestable.)
(Possibly the details of the arbitration can be worked out when we consider
an appeals process, so for now just specify "special arbitration")

This is a collection of our ideas of how to contest admin decisions:
- Disputes of a personal nature involving an admin can be resolved at the Bike Racks or by regular Arbitration

- Actions taken by an Admin in response to an alleged violation of the by-laws are contested under the provisions of Member Rights, Article (.)

- Actions taken by an Admin while exercising Routine Powers are contested in the following manner:
......- The member affected by the action requests of the admin that the action be reviewed

......- Two other admins and one jury member will review the action and either uphold it or overturn it.

Variations for the bit in blue:

- Two other admins and one jury member of the poster's choice?
- Two other admins and the mayor?
- One admin, one mayor, one jury member of the poster's choice?
- One admin, one jury member of the poster's choice, and the mayor gets to break a tie

Last edited by truehobbit on Tue 12 Apr , 2005 8:42 pm, edited 3 times in total.

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 2:51 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
truehobbit wrote:
- Public hearing in the jury room. (note: there isn't something like this
yet - all we have are arbitrations and bans)

- Do we need a special class of arbitrations for things involving admins
and the mayor? ) (Since the mayor's decisions should also be contestable.)
(Possibly the details of the arbitration can be worked out when we consider
an appeals process, so for now just specify "special arbitration")
I'll start by asking about this text of Jny's, which I found a bit confusing - I just didn't want to mess up the list of things to discuss in the second post.

Aren't the arbitration and hearing on a ban procedures kind of the same as a public hearing?

I would have thought that if someone wants to contest a decision they would contact another admin (or, now, the mayor), and if the problem couldn't be solved by peaceful discussion, the case would go to a process very like arbitration.
The main problem I see would be in contacting one admin about the behaviour of another, but that's the same problem that's faced in the question of how to remove an admin from office (must see if there's something on "how to" there).

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 2:54 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
I think the existing arbitration system should be the first line of defense, so to speak, in all cases. The question then becomes one of what powers we give to juries in regards to arbitrating cases involving admins et al.

I do believe that if someone is removed for trolling, spamming et al they should be able to appeal, since it's one of the few things that results in a ban. In fact, since the ban is immediate, isn't there the implication that such a case would be reviewed anyway to make sure?

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 4:08 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
TH - Aren't the arbitration and hearing on a ban procedures kind of the same as a public hearing?

Yes. Sorry that was confusing. The person who suggested “public hearing” did so, I believe, before the arbitration process had been posted. I presume the emphasis was on “public,” but I wanted to point out that the current arbitration system does not say anything specifically about conflict with an admin. So if we decided this hearing was different from other arbitrations, we would need to define it.

The main problem I see would be in contacting one admin about the behaviour of another, but that's the same problem that's faced in the question of how to remove an admin from office (must see if there's something on "how to" there).

There’s no “how to” as of yet. :)

Ax - I think the existing arbitration system should be the first line of defense, so to speak, in all cases.

Yes, I agree. That should be our starting point.

The question then becomes one of what powers we give to juries in regards to arbitrating cases involving admins et al.

And there is reason to believe that a great deal of new text will be created with respect to jurisprudence, specifically an appeals process ... and I am going to propose a 'grand jury' of sorts for dealing with issues that are not disputes but violations of by-laws ... like the distinction between civil and criminal cases in our court system.

If an admin enforced a by-law and a member disgreed that it had been enforced properly, then that would definitely be a case for a 'grand jury,' I would think. If the poster and admin just are not getting along and it needed arbitration, that could be a regular arbitration such as we have now. But, see below, I think there are also cases that would only occur with an admin, like post edits, for which we should lay out ground rules.

I do believe that if someone is removed for trolling, spamming et al they should be able to appeal, since it's one of the few things that results in a ban. In fact, since the ban is immediate, isn't there the implication that such a case would be reviewed anyway to make sure?

This is the topic that will be at the top of the list
HERE
as of midnight tonight (GMT)

I don’t know yet how people will want to handle this. I had suggested that such bans be “irreversible,” in the sense that they do not terminate by themselves, in which case a poster would have to request a hearing to reverse such a ban. There was a lot of opposition to the idea of irrreversible bans ... though it might just be the wording I chose ... but I don’t think that a person who spammed the board with porn overnight and then said they were sorry would fall under the category of “contesting the decision of an admin.” That would fall under the category of “hearings to reverse a ban.”

Contesting decisions would be more like ... an admin edited a post for objectionable contact, and the poster does not accept that decision.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 4:15 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Maybe "indefinite" would be a better word than "irreversible" in that context. I know I misunderstood it--I thought it meant a ban that could never be reversed.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 4:18 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
jny--
I am more concerned about someone whose computer is used as a spamming zombie without their knowledge in that last case...all too common these days.

I also think the distinction between juries should only be in regards to what they are looking at...if it's a bylaw violation, it's a grand jury, if a interpersonal issue, an arbitration jury. We run the risk of making this process too complex...

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 4:36 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Prim: Maybe "indefinite" would be a better word than "irreversible" in that context. I know I misunderstood it--I thought it meant a ban that could never be reversed.

Bans that follow a hearing have a particular time period attached to them (to be decided). It is the immediate bans that are open-ended at this point ... but yes, I agree that one should be able to reverse them.

Ax: I am more concerned about someone whose computer is used as a spamming zombie without their knowledge in that last case...all too common these days.

You mean by a family member? Or ad-ware? I’m unfamiliar with this problem.

I also think the distinction between juries should only be in regards to what they are looking at...if it's a bylaw violation, it's a grand jury, if a interpersonal issue, an arbitration jury. We run the risk of making this process too complex...

Yes, I agree. But I see no reason why we can’t specify here what type of ‘case’ a conflict with an admin would be.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 9:20 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Jnyusa wrote:
I don’t know yet how people will want to handle this. I had suggested that such bans be “irreversible,” in the sense that they do not terminate by themselves, in which case a poster would have to request a hearing to reverse such a ban. There was a lot of opposition to the idea of irrreversible bans ... though it might just be the wording I chose ...

Same misunderstanding as for Prim here - I thought irreversible meant it could never be reversed, no possibility for appeal and second chances etc.
Quote:
Contesting decisions would be more like ... an admin edited a post for objectionable contact, and the poster does not accept that decision.
Yes, that's what I thought it meant.

That's why I wondered whether there should be different processes or ways to deal with it. Contesting something that is the result of a routine action might be handled by just PMing the admin. Then, only if people can't agree on the question, the poster could ask for a hearing of his case.

If the whole thing started with something more serious, like a poster feeling treated unjustly when having their posting rights restricted or so, it could be a more formal case from the outset.

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 10:40 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
I was trying to think about the categories of things that might happen, and I thought that some distinctions might be appropriate in this clause, e.g.:

• Disputes of a personal nature involving an admin can be resolved at the Bike Racks or by regular Arbitration

• Actions taken by an Admin in response to an alleged violation of the by-laws are contested under the provisions of Member Rights, Article (.)

• Actions taken by an Admin while exercising Routine Powers are contested in the following manner:

... so that things done routinely by admins in the exercise of their duties would be what this clause covers. What we would have to decide is whether we should have a special arbitration dealing with conflicts that arise from an admin exercising normal authority .. or whether all conflicts simply go to arbitration.

I hesitate, you see, to subject an admin to a regular arbitration when what is happening is basically a challenge to their authority. Arbitration is not an adversarial process, and it assumes all parties are equal. I feel that admins should be given the benefit of the doubt in exercising authority, but that some fall-back mechanism should be in place just in case a member needs to cry 'foul.' That's what should be achieved by this provision, imo.

So I'm thinking that we could even hand the decision in this case over to the other admins. I know that we don't like admins making decisions about admins, but ... when the terms are only three months long, conspiracies of the status quo are not likely ... and this could be viewed as having the right to have, say, two other admins or three other admins review a decision and overturn it if they agreed it was not quite right, or too hasty or something. We wouldn't need a whole jury process. And the right to have x more admins look at a decision is one that could be granted liberally because it doesn't require much effort.

Jn

Last edited by Jnyusa on Mon 11 Apr , 2005 11:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 10:45 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
jny--

Adware can do it, but it's usually an out-and-out worm. Many denial-of-service attacks use hosts of unknowing people's PCs. And spammers use the technique to get around filters. Estimates are that up to 25% of systems online worldwide are compromised in this way to some extent.

Anyway--I would be uncomfortable with admins alone reviewing admin decisions. There should always be a non-admin in there to prevent even the appearance of a court of star chamber.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 11:36 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Two other admins and one jury member of the poster's choice?

Two other admins and the mayor?

One admin, one mayor, one jury member of the poster's choice?

(I personally prefer the first option. No reason to get the mayor involved, especially if we end up giving him/her ceremonial powers only)

Jn

edit: or, how-bout this? One admin, one jury member of the poster's choice, and the mayor gets to break a tie. (VP is a ceremonial office, too.) :D

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 11:46 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I'd say two admins and a juror. The admins are likely to have a good idea what's really going on with the admin in trouble, and the juror will help avoid unfairness.

I suspect the mayor is going to be busy kissing babies and cutting ribbons and presiding at Banquets (I always think Tolkien's capital B there is related to the weight of food served).

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 12:17 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5174
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Jn, in my lexicon, an arbitration is an adversarial process. I was going to mention this when we got to dispute resolution, but I'll mention it now since it has come up: I am strongly opposed to allowing a poster to chose their own juror. I think that is one of the reasons we ran into problems with the arbitration we had; the jurors were perceived to be people involved too close to the people involved. I feel strongly that jurors should be picked randomly from a juror pool. I know you disagree, Jn, but this is something that I do feel pretty strongly about (like there is anything about which I don't :roll:).


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 12:41 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
This is where I see a problem with the decision to have all-volunteer admin and jury pools.

We are going to be a small community for the foreseeable future, and already we see that those who volunteer for things are a subset of the community and often the same people repeatedly. That leads to the risk that admins and juries will at least be perceived as "too close to the people involved" or to each other. It also diminishes the value of randomness in the jury pool, because it will be smaller.

I wish that at least "jury duty" was something everyone was expected to do when called on, just as they are in RL in the United States at least.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 12:57 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
I know you disagree, Jn

Actually, it's not me who disagrees. The system that's in place now resulted from the long discussion in the Moderator: Decision Thread and all its spawn.

The reason it reads now that the poster can pick their juror is because a whole bunch of people insisted on this. :) [cough] including some people who later objected to it [cough] but you never really know what you're getting until you see it in practice.

I am more than willing to consider alternatives.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 1:27 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5174
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
I know we have said that jury duty is not mandatory, but couldn't we have the jury pool consist of the entire membership, but with the understanding that if someone got called for jury duty they could opt out? Or have we already decided against that?

I know that someone had made the argument that randomly picked juries are actually more inherently unfair that non-randomly picked juries, but I can not accept that.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 1:43 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
I know we have said that jury duty is not mandatory, but couldn't we have the jury pool consist of the entire membership, but with the understanding that if someone got called for jury duty they could opt out? Or have we already decided against that?

I think that when we voted that neither admin nor jury duty would be mandatory we pretty much covered that.

I know that someone had made the argument that randomly picked juries are actually more inherently unfair that non-randomly picked juries, but I can not accept that.

Hmmm ... that argument might have been made. I don't remember precisely. I made the argument that randomly picked groups are not necessarily less biased because you can indavertently get systematic bias in any sampling process ... that was in a discussion with oldtoby, and I don't remember now if it was about juries or about something else. ... yes, that was about juries because Wilko said we needed a random jury and I told him we don't have a random number generator. :)

Anyway, real world juries are not random.

... I'm thinking about the properties of random processes, and how a truly random process is likely to result in many charges of corruption ... but that's for a later discussion. ;)

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 2:18 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5174
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
To my way of thinking, there is something fundamentally unfair about allowing a person to choose who decides there fate. It is axiomatic that a person can not simultaneously act as an advocate for one party and as a neutral decisionmaker.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 2:48 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
It is axiomatic that a person can not simultaneously act as an advocate for one party and as a neutral decisionmaker.

This is true.

Technically, it is only in a hearing on a ban that one of the jury members is supposed to advocate for the poster.

But, we really should discuss this when we get to juries, because it's obvious that there are many options available to us.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 4  [ 78 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page 1 2 3 4 »
Jump to: