board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

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

Post Reply   Page 2 of 4  [ 78 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 »
Author Message
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 9:17 am
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
While I agree that it may not be wise to have someone picking their own jury I feel that they should have a vetoe right on the jury. If I found myself in an arbitration and saw that the three Jurists were all people who had issues with me I would be very upset. It's a little like the American jury system (as I understand it). Each side gets to Veto jurists that they think would be biased against them so you end up with as neutral a jury as possible. Obviously this is a gross simplification, but you get the gist.

Is this a possibility?

Alatar

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
Nin
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 9:53 am
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
I thought of an option like Alatars: The member requesting an arbitration against an admin has to pick X names out of the jury pool, and among those names one is chosen.

To what has been said earlier:
My preference goes to two admins and one member of the jury pool who is not admin.

I would also say that if it's only one poster and one contested action of an admin, it would really be preferable to sude the bike racks for the discussion and not to take it to a formal level - just explaining the different points of view helps most of the time to clarify that there was no malicious intent from one side or the other.

_________________

Nichts Schöneres unter der Sonne als unter der Sonne zu sein.
(Ingeborg Bachmann)


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 1:31 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Note: for the sake of Truehobbit who is translating all of this in order to keep the second post updated, the last nine posts have nothing to do with contesting the decision of an admin. :)

_________________

"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 2:12 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5170
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
I don't think the other admins should be involved in an arbitration contesting the decision of one of the admins. I think that could make continuing to work together awkward.

As I said before, I don't like the idea of a person being able to chose who is on their jury. I do agree that there should be an opportunity to veto a juror. In the American jury system, a party can always challege a juror for cause, if there is demonstrable bias. The party also has a limited number of "peremptory challenges" that can be made with providing a reason (so long as they are not used in racially discriminatory means, e.g. eliminating all African-Americans from a jury). I would like to see something similar here, if possible.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 2:40 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Voronwe, you have a point about awkwardness if admins have to find against another admin--although the longest they would have to work together afterward is less than three months.

My reason for suggesting it was that admins might have useful background knowledge of the previous behavior of both the accused admin and the contesting poster that probably couldn't be gotten at easily by others. Not "secret files"--just experience.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 3:02 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Wait, I'm confused.

Are we suggesting that a full arbitration be held if a poster is miffed about an edited post?

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 3:13 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5170
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Jnyusa wrote:
Note: for the sake of Truehobbit who is translating all of this in order to keep the second post updated, the last nine posts have nothing to do with contesting the decision of an admin. :)
Do too! :P

(Its been suggested that a jury by constituted to contest at least some decisions of an admin, ergo, how a jury is selected is germane to this discussion.)


Top
Profile Quote
Leoba
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 3:48 pm
Troubadour of Ithilien
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3539
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 11:04 am
Location: Bree, Buckinghamshire
 
Just briefly on the issue that Voronwe raised:
Voronwe wrote:
I am strongly opposed to allowing a poster to chose their own juror.
Except that as the current system is set, the parties involved don’t pick the jurors; they are invited to put suggestions forward, but the decision as to who to pick lies with the admins/Shirriffs. If I understand correctly, they aren’t obliged to chose the suggested members (though one presumes they’d need good reason to not do so). I can assure you that in the case we’ve had thus far, we chose people we felt were balanced, fair and intelligent, who indeed would in all likelihood have been picked from scratch by the admins if we hadn't been working to the suggestions set forth.


On the subject at hand:
Jny wrote:
Are we suggesting that a full arbitration be held if a poster is miffed about an edited post?
I wouldn't expect to see a full arbitration swing into being because someone was miffed about a post being edited. In the first instance in any kind of dispute, the onus should be on the people in disagreement to work it out between each other, using the bike racks is necessary. Only if they cannot come to an understanding a way forward from that point, would a more serious process need to be called upon.

However, if it couldn't be resolved and if came to a hearing, then calling upon two other admins and one jury member of the poster's choice to determine the path forward would be my preferred option. I really don't think the admins have long enough to get really cliquey, and they would have the background, noted by Prim, of having been following events perhaps more closely than a poster plucked at random. The juror option would give balance (perhaps we ask for a unanimous opinion of the three?).

_________________

Also found on Facebook - hunt me down via the MetaTORC group.

[ img ]

I just adore the concept of washing Dirty Horseboys!


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 3:57 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
I don't think that an admin should be required to go to the Bike Racks if their authority has been challenged on some minor issue.

I would much prefer to see that handled 'in house' .... it might be that the thread happens in the Bike Racks, but it should be a simple case of two other admins and a juror reviewing the situation and either upholding the decision or overturning it. I don't think the member should be allowed to duke it out with the admin until the member is completely satisfied. Otherwise, what use is authority?

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 4:10 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Jny--

Given how relatively limited admin powers are, I tend to agree. What is the worst that an admin can to do a poster that is not an egregious and blatant violation of the admin code of conduct?

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 4:31 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5170
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Leoba, :love:

To me its a question of appearances, more then anything else. I am quite sure that some of the people that were VERY upset about the arbitration thought that the jurors were biased in favor of the person involved. The fact that the person involved had a hand in choosing who would serve (even if he did not make the final choice) had to contribute to that appearance.

But really, this subject should wait until we get to dispute resolution. I'll try to stop continuing to address it.

Last edited by Voronwë_the_Faithful on Tue 12 Apr , 2005 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 5:21 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Among the Routine Powers, this is the only one that could possibly result in a poster contesting the admin's action:

"Lock, split or move threads upon request of members, or when it is necessary to improve the coherence of a forum. The thread originator must be notified beforehand."

Hang on: I'm going to look real quick at what we've got for Special Powers so far in the other thread.

I'm back. Everything on the agenda so far concerns serious issues where a full arbitration or ruling of some sort would be required - like automatic bans and suspension of posting rights in the RP and England forums (for bad behavior) Those procedures will be covered under Special Powers.

I guess what I was thinking was that we would add to the list of Special Powers those circumstances in which an admin might edit a post ... maybe for extreme discourtesy or really crude/violent language or something. And we wouldn't want to full arbitration for dealing with that because the argument of the poster might be, "I was kidding." And the answer might be, "Someone complained. Don't do it again." We shouldn't need to convene a jury and send out emails and so forth.

Maybe we can specify here that this procedure applies when a poster has a problem with the action of an admin concerning a particular post or thread, or any other minor issue for which some other procedure is not specified in the by-laws.


Jn

Last edited by Jnyusa on Tue 12 Apr , 2005 5:28 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
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 5:24 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Just a quick check in here though I'm not caught up yet. Hope I'll be in a couple of hours just pray the little one goes to sleep tonight without major hassles

;)
_______________
Resident witch [ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 5:35 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Jn, we should add to the reasons an admin might edit a post something such as "to correct a problem with page display that is caused by some element of the post."

And if we decide that there are any circumstances when an edit is an "emergency" that can be done without the poster's permission (though with notification, of course), this ought to be one of them. Posters can vanish for days or weeks or forever.

Aaaand, I've done this kind of edit twice already and without official previous permission both times. . . . :oops:

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 5:37 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Prim,

I'm going to add an "Editing Posts" item to the Special Powers agenda in the other thread, and list this suggestion there.

In fact that should be a routine power ... but there has been so much talk about posts about illegal or immoral behavior (which may have to be edited) that I thought it would be easier to put all categories of edit under Special Powers.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 6:53 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Editing a post should indeed be part of the routine powers and ¶4. Routine Powers, making note of such edits by posting date and reason I believe is more than adequate to cover this.
But of course I'm not opposed of putting it under 'special powers' for now until we have a better definition.

As to
Quote:
I don't think that an admin should be required to go to the Bike Racks if their authority has been challenged on some minor issue.
I'm sorry to say but I don't really see any reason why not. At the end of the day an Admin is also a normal poster (sure, with special powers and responsabilities etc.) but still a normal poster and like any normal poster can be required to work it out in the bikeracks if necessary.

I'd much rather have that option than a lengthy and potentially complicated procedure of special juries. If the persons involved can work it out, fine.... and if not, isn't it simply a case of taking it to arbitration?

I can live with a jury of two admins and one poster determined by the poster but I can also appreciate the possible controversy of this. Might it be possible of all parties agreeing upon a 3rd juror, as Leoba also suggested? Seems to me the best and easiest way out of it.

_______________
Resident witch [ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 8:07 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Finally back in this thread - thanks for the help with keeping track, Jny! :)

Alandriel, I think the point is being required to go to the Bike Racks - or having the chance to solve the problem in private first.
So, yes, if solving the problem peacefully doesn't work, they should go to the Bike Racks, but one could still try to settle things calmly first.

Am I getting this right?
The way things are leaning now is like I first suggested, I think: that for problems coming from exercising routine powers (editing posts for example) one should first try less disruptive and noticeable remedies.

Although for this it would be necessary to impress on the admins that they need to face criticism calmly and not take it personally. Hmmh, I wonder if that could go into the code of conduct?
There's bound to be criticism, and probably not always in polite style.

Ok, off to do a bit of editing of the second post now. Sorry about the delay. :)

_________________

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
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 8:20 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
truehobbit wrote:
it would be necessary to impress on the admins that they need to face criticism calmly and not take it personally. Hmmh, I wonder if that could go into the code of conduct?
There's bound to be criticism, and probably not always in polite style.
Excellent, excellent point, th.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 8:49 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
TH: if the problem can be solved 'behind the scenes' rather than the bikeracks then I'm all for it. I've always said though how I've expressed it might have gotten muddled in all the politics ;):

first instance, sort any problems out between posters (also posters/admin) either via PM, email OR the bikeracks. Only if there are more than two people involved it's usually wiser to take it to bikeracks (but email of course can also work with cc's etc.). In the end it must be the posters choice (also the admins choice), right of choice that is. If one party asks to conduct it behind the scenes then that needs to be respected. However, if the process fails and there are still complaints, then it's better to take it to bikeracks or to the jury room, depending on the severity and complexity of the case.

As to your other point re Admins need to face criticism calmly - excellent point! But sometimes hard to achieve lol. When in a 'flutter' things are so easily misread. I once felt strongly about something and typed a PM, strongly advising someone but stressing it was my personal recommendation only and the person would need to make up their own minds. Coming from someone being an Admin (at the time) it was taken as reading 'DO THIS OR ELSE..' (well perhaps not *that* strong) which of course was never my intention. The problem thankfully got solved with a few swaps of emails. What I'm trying to say with this example is that yes, calmness is definitely a virtue in an Admin, but misunderstandings will probably still happen. Sometimes it's better to let a few hours pass before replying ;)

_______________
Resident witch [ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Nin
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Apr , 2005 9:48 pm
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
I agree with the fact, that as far as possible, posters try to sort out their differences between them either through PM or IM or mail or whatever. I just think that for a poster it might be good to know that he can even take an admin to the bike-racks.

In the end, the potential conflict between an admin and a poster would not be a lot different from the conflict between any posters - only that the admins might be more exposed to potential conflicts because of their temporary position of power.

_________________

Nichts Schöneres unter der Sonne als unter der Sonne zu sein.
(Ingeborg Bachmann)


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