board77

BALLOT

Question 1: Admins have power to Edit Posts
• if they affect the display of the page, e.g. stretched pages, after notifying the poster

SELECT ONE
A. I approve this text, and it can be moved to Routine Powers
B. I approve this text and want it to remain in Special Powers
C. I do not approve this text

Question 2: Admins have power to Edit Posts
• if they contain objectionable content, for example: abuse of another poster, defamatory remarks, pornographic, violent or distasteful content, or advertisement of products

SELECT ONE
A. I approve this text
B. I do not approve this text

Question 3: Admins have power to enact an Immediate Ban for the following offenses if the poster has registered within the last [seven days] you will vote on the seven days in question 4
1. Spamming the board with ads
2. Spamming the board with porn
3. Hacking the board
4. Refusing to abide by the Decision of Jury in an Arbitration
5. Threats of real life violence or other criminal acts against members
6. In all other cases the poster has the Right to a Hearing, and if the poster registered more than seven days ago they are considered a member of the community and have a right to a hearing for these offenses as well, but their posting rights will be restricted to the Jury Room for the duration of the hearing.

SELECT ONE
A. I approve all six points
B. I wish to exclude point(s) [#]Please fill in all numbers you wish to exclude

Question 4: ... if the poster has registered within the last [seven days]

SELECT ONE
A. I agree to the seven-day minimum
B. I prefer a minimum of [#] days. Please fill in the number of days you prefer

Question 5: Admins have power to temporarily suspend posting rights or restrict access to a forum
1. In the Invite Forum, if information about the contents of an invitation thread has been revealed to a non-member, access can be suspended [this provision becomes void if the Invite Forum is removed]
2. In the Jury Room, if poster has interfered with an Arbitration or Hearing on a Ban, board-wide posting rights can be suspended until the Arbitration or Hearing is concluded
3. In the There and Back Again forum, if more than one complaint has been made against the way an RP identity has been used, posting rights can be suspended until an arbitration can be held regarding the continuation of that identity.
4. In the Thinking of England Forum, if more than one complaint has been made about the way a poster has been posting there, posting rights can be suspended until an arbitration can be held to determine the right of continued access to that forum.
5. If a sig pic is arguably pornographic, violent or distasteful it can be removed. If the poster persists in reposting it, posting rights outside the Jury Room can be suspended until an arbitration decision is reached.

SELECT ONE:
A. I approve all five points
B. I wish to exclude point(s) [#] Please fill in all numbers you wish to exclude

Question 6: Admins have power to convene a hearing on a ban
• Whenever a bannable offense is called to their attention.

SELECT ONE
A. I approve this text
B. I do not approve this text

Question 7: Admins have power to convene a hearing to reverse a ban if the following three conditions are met:
1. if the duration of the ban was not specified
2. at least (a)two weeks (b) one month (c)six months (d) one year (e) other has elapsed since the ban went into effect
3. the banned poster has requested a new hearing in writing. you will vote on time limit in Quest. 8

SELECT ONE
A. I agree to all three requirements
B. I wish to exclude requirement(s) [#]Please fill in all numbers you wish to exclude

Question 8: Time limit before a hearing can be convened to reverse a ban
A. Two weeks
B. One month
C. Six months
D. One year
E. Other (specify by adding the number)

RANK YOUR CHOICES, with #1 being most preferred.
#1=
#2=
#3=
#4=
#5=

Question 9: Procedures for using special and emergency powers
• An immediate ban is of unspecified duration. A Hearing must be convened to reverse it.

SELECT
A. I agree with this provision
B. I do not agree with this provision

Question 10: When posting rights are suspended, an arbitration must be held and the jury will decide the duration of the suspension, not to exceed the maximum duration specified here: you will vote on maximum durations in question 10:Error - this question was eliminated for insufficient input

SELECT
A. I agree with this provision
B. I do not agree with this provision

Question 11: Extraordinary Powers of Admins
Recognizing that unforeseen events may occur which require a quick response, Board77 administrators are expected to use their best judgment in emergencies, and to take whatever action they believe necessary to protect the board. An emergency would be an event which threatened real and immediate harm, but which is not otherwise addressed by this charter. In such an event, the administrator(s) in question would be expected to explain the circumstances and consult with the board membership as soon as possible. Such measures are temporary by their nature and subject to review by [some body as yet to be determined.]

SELECT
A. I approve this text
B. I do not approve this text

Pretty good from what I can see at first glance.

But I think partly I know now why I was so confused about the hearings and bannings and the list of bannable offenses yesterday.

Quote:

Question 3: Admins have power to enact an Immediate Ban for the following offenses if the poster has registered within the last [seven days] you will vote on the seven days in question 4

4. Refusing to abide by the Decision of Jury in an Arbitration

All the other points are for people who just come in and spam or otherwise harm the board, but this one would also concern a long-standing poster who finds they can't live with the decision of a jury.

Therefore, I think this point doesn't belong in the list. (I had my doubts about it on reading the admin powers thread yesterday, but couldn't really formulate a coherent thought on why I thought it didn't fit.)

TH - I had my doubts about it, too. Then I had a second thought that it makes sense here, because if a person defies an arbitration decision (for example, continues to hurl insults at another poster) they shouldn't receive endless chances to be heard. But now I'm having third thoughts about it, because it is different in character from the other things on the list and I continue to be unsure.

The difference between having it here versus eliminating it from this list is this:

If it stays here, the person who defies a jury and gets an immediate ban will have to request a hearing to be unbanned. They won't be unbanned automatically at the end of some time period.

If we remove it from this list, then the automatic thing would be a hearing on a ban.

So ... in the first case they're banned and need a hearing to reverse. In the second case they're not banned and need a hearing to be banned.

I would like to hear other people's comments about this.

Jn

In my opinion it clearly should be there. I would go so far as to say that if admins do not have the power (subject to appeal) to immediately ban someone who refuses to abide by the decision of a jury, then all of our rules are meaningless.

Yes--if there can be no enforcement, why should anyone comply? Why should the jury bother? Why have juries?

Concerning this, Cerin posted in the Business Forum:

"I think it would be better to have the ban be automatic, and require a requested hearing to be unbanned."

Jn

Hmmh, been thinking it over, but I can't agree.

On the one hand, I do agree - under the aspect of enforcing Jury decisions. No doubt they need to be enforceable.

On the other, though:
For one, I think it still doesn't make sense to have this with the provision that in all its other aspects is for people who have been there less than seven days or for a more physical kind of offence.

I think, with this provision, what we get is: offenses that are bannable immediately are

- registering just to spam the board (ie things done by de facto non-members)

- real life violence by members (ie things done by members but basically taking place outside the board, even though the threat might take place on the boards)

- hacking the board, which if done by de facto non-members goes under point one, and if by members is closer to real life violence, as there's something "physical" to it (I think), so it's closer to point two

- refusing to abide by a jury decision by members

The way I read it, this makes "refusing to abide by a jury decision" the worst thing a member can commit on the boards (!), as it will be the only thing done strictly on the boards only, by a real member (as opposed to someone who just registers to spam the boards, who I wouldn't call a real member) that can be punished with automatic banning.

With all the necessity for enforcement, I wonder whether that isn't a bit exaggerated.
Restricting such a poster's rights to the Jury Room and having a hearing on a ban seems to me to be quite enough, to be honest.

Such a procedure would also stop the behaviour, it would be likely to lead to the appropriate "punishment", but it's a calmer response.
It would mean going to the next step in our "rule-enforment", simply, rather than coming down on the offender with the highest force we have at our disposal.

(And to compare to TORC - ok, maybe it can't really be compared, but it had crossed my mind, so I thought I'd share it - I suppose what is a jury decision here, could be compared to a mod decision on TORC - but when someone edits something back into a post that a mod had taken out, or if someone refuses to stop a behaviour a mod has asked them to stop, AFAIK there's no automatic indefinite banning or so - they are in big trouble, yes, but it's not so big a crime as we'd be making it here.)

Hobby, my problem with this argument is that someone who has received a jury decision has already been through a long process and has had their say. If the punishment for ignoring the jury decision is a hearing on a ban, then there must be yet another procedure and yet another argument, almost certainly over the same issues. It allows people who disagree with a jury decision to drag their feet and drag out the process and clog up the board's administrative system. It is not nearly the deterrent that an immediate ban would be.

Edit: A second thought I had was that having strong enforcement of jury decisions might deter people from getting into trouble in the first place, or from frivolously asking for arbitrations. People might be more inclined to settle problems among themselves if they knew they might lose a jury decision and would then have to comply or else.

Could someone explain to me please how exactly you understand "abide to a jury's decision"

- Does it mean that you have to obey to the decision, without commenting or critisizing it, or can you still comment or critisize the decision as long as you respect it?

Prim, good point - the first one, that is!
Hmmh, as I said I agree with the need for enforcement. True, having a hearing on a ban means more work for the rest of the board, just because someone for whatever reason won't accept a ruling.

The second point, though, seems a bit scary at first sight!

Quote:

People might be more inclined to settle problems among themselves if they knew they might lose a jury decision and would then have to comply or else.

It's not always easy to settle problems among yourselves, especially, I should think, if they are serious. So, having to be afraid to call on an arbitration because you might lose and have no way to challenge the decision (although we are going to discuss how to challenge a Jury decision, or aren't we? ) really defeats the purpose. It's (sorry, TORC-comparison again) like people being afraid to tell the mods of a problem, because they fear they might get in trouble themselves.
It would create an authority that people are afraid to call on - as we say in German "Don't go to see your prince unless you are called for" - meaning you only get into trouble when you seek contact to authority - and I think that's not how things should be.

(Though I know this might be putting the wrong reading on your edit - it's just describing my immediate reaction, rather than coherent thoughts, really.)

Btw, it's not that I'm totally opposed against the whole thing as it is now, after all the difference is just one of degrees, not one of kind.

I just wanted to point out to people that (apart from not fitting logically somehow), the way it's now, IMO, "refusing to abide" is defined as the worst offence on this board!
If people think it really is that, then I can't argue against it.

So, if the majority thinks that "refusing to abide by the decision of a jury" is commensurate with "hacking the board, spamming the board and threats of RL violence", rather than whatever other bannable offenses we come up with (it's a pity there aren't any examples there yet to compare offenses), there's nothing much I can say.
I just thought that maybe people weren't aware of the weight this ruling gives to this particular offense.

Nin, that's an excellent question!
I have no idea what the answer is! (But I suspect, from some things Voronwe said a while ago about respecting Jury members, that being very outspoken about your dislike of the decision would get you into trouble. It might be considered insulting other members, or so, depending on your style of criticising it, maybe.)

Hobby, I meant only that someone might be deterred from bringing a frivolous or malicious case, not a valid one. A person with a reason for complaint can reasonably expect to win.

And I interpret "abiding by the jury's decision" as following the specific instructions in the decision--say, "You will stop harassing Poster X on the board." If they continue to harass Poster X, that's failure to abide.

Complaining about a decision is entirely within a poster's rights. The problem is where it crosses over into harassment or insult, of the jurors or anyone else. But that would be taken care of, if necessary, in the same way as any other similar wrangle between two posters. The "failure to abide" rule does not at all cover that.

I hope someone will correct me if I misunderstand.

Nin, in my mind, criticizing or expressing disagreement with the decision of a jury is perfectly acceptable. Doing so in a way that is scornful and/or disrespectful to the jurors is not.

hobby, its not a question of not being able to challenge the decision of a jury. No one is saying that people should not have an opportunity to challenge the decision, least of all me (I was actually the first person to suggest that we needed some kind of "Court of Appeals" for exactly that reason). Nor is it a question of determining what offenses are worse then others. Such value judgments have very little meaning to me, and I don't think they are helpful. What it is a question of is making sure that the jury decisions actually have meaning.

I wanted the failure to abide clause moved in there in the first place, but it does seem that in many cases an unbanning hearing is inevitable...so suspending all posting rights except for the Jury Room is de facto what will happen in some cases. This should be done as an interim stage before a ban , though, not a replacement for it. If someone does not contest the action within a certain period of time, say 30 days, the ban kicks in.

Note that appealing a jury decision is not the same as refusing to abide, so long as the person involved follows the arbitration until the appeal is decided one way or the other...assuming we come up with an appeal process...

Criticizing a jury, even in a scornful way, would not be a failure to abide. Failure to abide means failure to do what the jury directs - like removing a sig pic, or refraining from cursing another poster.


If one behaves disrepectfully toward a jury member, that would be a separate complaint, presumably brought by the jury member.

I guess I do think that on a member-moderated board, defying a jury decision is in fact more destructive than spamming.

Jn

Definitely so!

The draft ballot looks good to me

... off to do some more training threads over at the experimental board Peek in there sometime when you have a chance.
_______________
Resident witch

There have been no suggestions to change the ballot - just vote against anything you don't want included, as usual.

Voting will begin Monday (today) at 8:00PM GMT (4:00PM EST) and will last for 24 hours.

Jn

Question 1: Admins have power to Edit Posts
A. I approve this text, and it can be moved to Routine Powers

Question 2: Admins have power to Edit Posts
A. I approve this text

Question 3: Admins have power to enact an Immediate Ban for the following offenses if the poster has registered within the last [seven days] you will vote on the seven days in question 4
A. I approve all six points

Question 4: ... if the poster has registered within the last [seven days]
A. I agree to the seven-day minimum

Question 5: Admins have power to temporarily suspend posting rights or restrict access to a forum
A. I approve all five points

Question 6: Admins have power to convene a hearing on a ban
• Whenever a bannable offense is called to their attention.
A. I approve this text

Question 7:
A. I agree to all three requirements

Question 8: Time limit before a hearing can be convened to reverse a ban

RANK YOUR CHOICES, with #1 being most preferred.
#1= E (No Time Limit)
#2= A
#3= B
#4= C
#5= D

Question 9: Procedures for using special and emergency powers
B. I do not agree with this provision

Question 10: When posting rights are suspended, an arbitration must be held and the jury will decide the duration of the suspension, not to exceed the maximum duration specified here: you will vote on maximum durations in question 10
A. I agree with this provision

Question 11: Extraordinary Powers of Admins
A. I approve this text

Thanks for explaining further, Prim and Voronwe!

The bit about a Court of Appeals sounded good (I had a vague memory of the suggestion, but didn't remember what it was called).

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:

Nor is it a question of determining what offenses are worse then others. Such value judgments have very little meaning to me, and I don't think they are helpful. What it is a question of is making sure that the jury decisions actually have meaning.

That just had me stumped, Voronwe! I had never thought of the possibility of NOT seeing it as a value judgement - or rather a judgement about the gravity of the offense. Hmmmh, not really time to think about it, as the voting has already started. I'm trying to see it not as a value judgement, but I don't think I'm succeeding.

It's also a bit sad, I think, that there weren't any other contributions. Not that it's not nice and cosy, just the five of us discussing this, but it feels funny when no one else says anything. I assume, though, that means everyone else agrees with Jny.

Question 1: A

Question 2: A

Question 3: A

Question 4: A

Question 5: A

Question 6: A

Question 7: A

Question 8:

#1 - B
#2 - E = 3 months
#3 - C
#4 - A
#5 - D

Question 9: A

Question 10: A

Question 11: A

_______________
Resident witch