board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Assembling Hearing Procedures in Full

Post Reply   Page 4 of 5  [ 97 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Author Message
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 3:26 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
In order of offering:

Judge (or Chief Justice?)
Proctor
Hearing Facilitator
Jury Foreman (Foreperson?)
Bounder (do you like the joke?)
Watcher
Counselor

from thesaurus:

Monitor

others have creepy connotations:

Vigil (vigilante?)
Ward or Warden (of a prison?)
Sentry, Sentinel (in case we're invaded?)

Last edited by Jnyusa on Mon 09 May , 2005 4:57 am, 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
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 3:34 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Consigliere?

Actually—Counselor? As in one who gives advice? . . . Maybe not.

Of the ones you list, Jn, "facilitator" and "monitor," though boring, have the correct implication of somebody who helps with the process without controlling the outcome. Of course the judge in a jury trial does the same until the verdict is in, but then he/she assumes another role.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 3:41 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
I'm repeating myself, but I strongly think the procedural expert should not be a participant in the process in any other way. So, a jury foreperson sounds like a creature of the jury and I see a conflict if that person is tied to the jury in any way other than as an outside resource. The procedural expert should be available to all of the other participants and not directly associated with any of them so far as the governance framework.

_________________

Idylle in exile: the view over the laptop on a bad day
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 4:58 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Prim, I'm editing into the list as we go. Counselor is nice. I like that.

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: Mon 09 May , 2005 1:18 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Jny wrote:
I am waiting to hear from Alandriel on these two issues that are still unresolved - Mayor v. Proctor and On-board deliberations v. Email deliberations.
You know...Mayor v Proctor (or whatever title though I do like Proctor) - this has caused me nearly a brain meltdown. But after re-reading yours and IS's posts probably two dozen times I think I'm getting it. Talk about dense :help:

Right - so we do need a second person 'in charge' :Q ;) - I see that now. You can all exhale now :P

As to On-board deliberations vs email deliberations....
It's really not that big a deal for me and I can understand why you and some others rather avoid the on-board versions. I have no problem letting that issue lie. Email conferences amongst 7 or more people could be a pain.. but then who knows, perhaps one of the jurors with approval from the others will just simply open their own private phpbb and shut it down when done ;)

And CONGRATULATIONS finally :D to you, your daughter, newest grand-daughter and your entire family :cheerleader:

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢ [ img ]
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 1:54 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Quote:
Cerin: Administrators have the right to delete ...

Jnyusa: This final comment now appears at the end of a paragraph explaining that people should not enter the thread without permission from the participants, so I don't think it will be misunderstood that it is at the request of participants that admins would bother doing this.

In the old sticky I believe the sentence about post removal stood alone and needed more specificity for that reason.

Imagining that I am newly arrived at b77 and am reading the sticky to learn how to use the Bike Racks, I do not believe this paragraph makes it clear that

1 - It is my prerogative as a thread participant to request that non-participant posts be deleted

2 - The Administrator's right to delete such posts is contingent upon such a request from a thread participant

I think I might come away with the idea that deleting such posts is primarily the Admins call.

(I am not insistent that this be changed, and I won't mention it again; I just wanted to state that I think the paragraph in its present form is unclear.)


Quote:
In order of offering:

Judge (or Chief Justice?)
Proctor
Hearing Facilitator
Jury Foreman (Foreperson?)
Bounder (do you like the joke?)
Watcher
Counselor


I wouldn't object to Bounder, knowing the source.

I think Watcher is rather funny (knowing the source).

I like 'Prosigliere', from IS's procedural expert and Prim's Consigliere (no, you do not have to add that to the list).

Don't care for Judge or Foreperson.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 6:54 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Cerin - I do not believe this paragraph makes it clear that ...

I am also inclined to state things in a more straightforward fashion. If someone's not allowed in a thread without permission, I prefer "Stay Out" to "Please don't enter here, you might not be wanted, and bad things might happen to you if you wander in, we know you have good ideas but please don't force them on people," and so on.

But it is my observation over the last three months of this that most members prefer much softer language than I do, and they like to pad the rules with apologies for having rules, and include the logic of the rule and so forth. The members voted to put the soft language in the sticky (and so did I) and though I think it does obscure the message somewhat, the words "non-designated posters" should be clear enough, since it does say above that sentence that the participants are the ones who designate them.

I don't think there's much we can do about the lack of clarity at this point, Cerin, except to pull that paragraph out, re-discuss it, and then vote on it. It's not that I don't think it is worthwhile to strive for maximum clarity, but I don't believe that what we get second time around will be any clearer than what we have now. For my own part, I have given up on getting the kind of stark clarity that I myself would prefer.

TORN made a wonderful suggestion in the other thread which I am copying here for us to discuss.

I wonder if any thought has been given to allowing the accused to request a "bench" trial (i.e., waive a right to a jury and instead have an admin "try" the case, possibly in private) or allowing settlements to be reached where the accused poster agrees to be banned (this option brings to mind prior discussions on this board about allowing people to request a self-ban -- my personal opinion is that I see nothing wrong with fulfilling a requested self-ban, even if it might tangentially help that poster to make a point that is contrary to the established position of the board).

I think this would be an excellent addition to ¶5 - the alternate procedure. Or, if people prefer, it could be a separate paragraph (as the other minor variations on procedure are) and I will renumber everything (easy to do).

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 09 May , 2005 7:30 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I also like TORN's suggestion, as long as there's some way to make public the fact that there was a bench trial and that the wish for a more private proceeding came from the accused.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 9:53 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Prim -

That's what I was thinking about, too!

I was going to say, put a thread in the jury room, note that it's a bench trial and then lock it. But then I had a second thought, which is TORN's point that the poster might 'plead guilty' to avoid the publicity. :neutral:

Doing hearings in public is for the sake of the accused - to prevent TORC-like persecutions in secret. Well ... I guess it's also for the sake of board ... but not the whole board - rather, that the poster who lodged the complaint (if there was such a person) knows that something was done about it. So ... I'm trying to think what we've got already and how it would go down. In the RP forum, for example, if there are two complaints that a character is running amok, the admins can restrict the posting rights of that character in that forum, but they have to convene a hearing to determine how long the posting rights will be restricted.

Say you're the first person who complains. What satisfaction do you get? Just the admin saying, "I've noted your complaint." If no one else complains, nothing happens. But it needs to be that way to avoid frivolous or vindictive complaints.

If you're the second person who complains, then you might notice the absence of the character in the thread, but you wouldn't know that a hearing had convened until the thread went up in the jury room. If a bench trial were held instead, you would never know the outcome except to observe the temporary (or permanent) absence of the character.

We have under U.S. law this thing about the right to confront one's abuser. We could turn that on it's head a bit, as a responsibility to confront one's accuser. So that if a bench trial were requested, the two people who lodged the complaints that led to this would have to restate their complaints formally ... perhaps just by acknowledging to the 'panel' (as chosen) a second time that they did submit the complaint that the panel holds in its hand. So they would know that something was done, but they would not know what penalty was imposed unless the accused chose to tell. The penalty would not be published. (The Mayor would have to record it, of course, but the Mayor's records are not public.)

It could not be used for bannable offenses. Only for things that resulted in a suspension of posting rights. It wouldn't make sense for a member to agree to be banned - if they wanted to do that, they would just leave the board.

But I like the idea that the accused could have a private process if they wanted one. As long as the complainants have a way of knowing that their complaint was at least addressed. So we balance privacy and transparency.

When this current vote ends tonight, I'm going to split this paragrah ¶5 into it's own thread for a focused discussion on these points, and probably an interim vote on creating this second elected office and what to call it. I've got to read this stuff again and figure out how many draft ballots can be run simultaneously without contradiction.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 10:16 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
TORN wrote:
I wonder if any thought has been given to allowing the accused to request a "bench" trial (i.e., waive a right to a jury and instead have an admin "try" the case, possibly in private)
Would we want to consider having the Bounder/Proctor/Watcher/etc. be the one to 'try' the case in this instance?

If not, how would the admin be chosen?

Jnyusa wrote:
If a bench trial were held instead, you would never know the outcome except to observe the temporary (or permanent) absence of the character.

Why should the result of a bench trial not be known?

I didn't relate TORN's comments to a desire for secrecy with respect to the result, but so that the the evidence, testimony, defense, etc. not be aired publicly.

I'm open to being persuaded, but at this point I don't like the idea that the cause for a hearing, and the result of a hearing would not be known to the board.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 10:32 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Cerin: I didn't relate TORN's comments to a desire for secrecy with respect to the result, but so that the the evidence, testimony, defense, etc. not be aired publicly.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what TORN has proposed. I thought this would be like pleading guilty, so that there would be no evidence, testimony, defense, etc. Just some panel - it could even be composed of all current admins - deciding how much penalty should attach to the offense.

If an accused agrees that they did something wrong and is willing to accept a nominal penalty, I don't think the board is necessarily entitled to know about it.

But I would not want a situation where the admins (or other members) accused a poster of something, and the poster felt innocent and wanted to defend themselves, and the board had no way of confirming that a fair and impartial decision was reached. If people are claiming two different things, then the judgment needs to be public.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 10:51 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Jnyusa wrote:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what TORN has proposed. I thought this would be like pleading guilty, so that there would be no evidence, testimony, defense, etc. Just some panel - it could even be composed of all current admins - deciding how much penalty should attach to the offense.
I thought the one instance of agreeing to be banned would be like pleading guilty, but I also thought TORN was suggesting the possibility of having a hearing, but privately, 'in front of' the one individual rather than 'in front of' the jury?
Quote:
If an accused agrees that they did something wrong and is willing to accept a nominal penalty, I don't think the board is necessarily entitled to know about it.
I think that if it is a 'community issue' (which it would have to be to warrant a hearing), then it would make sense for the community to know about it?


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 11:35 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
Alandriel,

Thanks for understanding what I meant. I don't claim to be the clearest writer.


Torn's suggestion of a bench trial is fine and could save a lot of effort, if used. A bench trial is frequently used in plea bargains, but is also used for a "not guilty" pleas which go through the full process with the judge acting as the jury. It must be requested by the defendant.


When did he pass the bar?

_________________

Idylle in exile: the view over the laptop on a bad day
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 11:44 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Cerin: 'in front of' the one individual rather than 'in front of' the jury?

If this is what TORN means, then I take back what I said previously. I don't like the idea of one individual making a decision in secret. That's exactly what we're trying to get away from. Even having all current admins running an actual hearing where the defendent claims innocence - this is not likely to please our membership

it would make sense for the community to know about it?

Yes, this is our 'first principle' ... but I don't think it necessarily means that all 180 members have to be told about it by having it posted in public ...

'The Community' does not always mean "all members of the community." It can also mean "any member of the community." Any member of the community affected by an issue has a right to know its disposition, imo.

But say, for example, that Alandriel gets drunk one night and runs amok in the RP forum. :D Multiple posters complain. Once she sobers up she agrees that she did something very, very bad and agrees to be suspended from that forum for a week. Also, she would not like her drunken spree to become general knowledge because it is very uncharacteristic of Alandriel to get drunk and run amok and she is ashamed of what happened.

I never visit the RP forum. Have no idea what goes on over there. Do I have a right to know about this?

My opinion would be that Alandriel's right to privacy outweighs my right to know in this case. She can't hide her drunken spree from other people in the RP forum because they were affected by it, and they will also be aware that Alandriel has disappeared for a week. That part of the community affected by this issue knows what happened.

I think the test rule should be that the ones who are affected have a right to know, but the whole community is not necessarily entitled to know every single thing that goes on.

I also don't think people really care what goes on unless it affects them. (Prurient interest does not count, in my opinion).

What takes us by surprise and makes us suddenly aware that things are affecting us adversely even though we didn't know about it ... I think this is not individual posters doing unexpected things but rather procedures that do not properly contain and resolve conflicts. When a procedure is poorly designed, one instance of injustice makes us suddenly aware that we are all vulnerable (as happened on TORC), but when the procedure is well designed, one instance of injustice gets corrected and then we are made aware that we are not all vulnerable.

Hope this makes sense. It is kind of philosophical ... but then, our philosophical approach is what will determine the way we tackle issues like this one.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 12:02 am
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
I have no idea what you guys are talking about, I'm afraid, but I read something about GC #2 being there, so I wanted to say: Congrats! :D

And I keep reading about a "proctor", I don't know what the idea is, but it's an awfully ugly word.
Just sayin'.

LOL, the longer this thread gets the more disheartened I get to even try to catch up. I'm afraid that sooner or later I'll just jump into the discussion without having read everything, so I best apologise in advance! ;) :D

_________________

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: Tue 10 May , 2005 12:19 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
TH: :( I'm sorry! This is getting rather complicated. Let me see if I can unravel some of it for you.

We've been talking mostly about paragraph ¶4 (see the first few posts of the thread). That paragraph lays out the basic procedure that will be used in all Hearings. The paragraphs that follow present only minor modifications to ¶4, so we are trying to settle ¶4 and then we can vote on a bunch of paragraphs at one.

But ¶4 is not easy.
(1) Quite a few committee members feel that we need to create an elected office that does nothing but makes sure that correct procedure is followed during a Hearing. There needs to be one person - and not the Mayor - who knows the charter well, knows what the hearing procedure should be, knows what you can and cannot be penalized for and so forth, to whom jurors will address procedural questions. This idea has been discussed for the last few pages, and I believe that we will soon put it to a vote whether we should create an official like that.
(2)We are also discussing is what to call that person.
(3) Alandriel suggested that we create a hidden forum for jury deliberations, but the downside of that is that it cannot be hidden from the administrators. We can envision a few difficulties arise from this, so this idea has been pretty much abandoned.
(4) Now TORN has suggested that we build another option into ¶4, which he calls a "Bench Trial." We discovered that we are not sure what he means by this. Idylle and I thought it meant "pleading guilty" and not having to go to a hearing, whereas Cerin thought it meant a hidden hearing with admins instead of jurors. TORN also gave a specific example which might be problematic - a poster appearing before one admin and agreeing to be banned. But the principle might be sound even if we disagree with his example.

That's where we are now.

I think that I am going to put up an interim vote on the existence and title of this second elected official, to resolve part of the discussion at least.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 12:36 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
Jnyusa,
Congratulations! You'll be changing diapers soon.

I don't object to the use of the bench trial in the plea bargain mode exclusively. I don't like public floggings, but I expect some will object to the privacy of it as you proposed it. I think it might get support if it was in the open, just quick and to the point. I get dizzy bouncing between full trust and no trust of the those governing. A good opportunity for the Watcher to show his quality, though if privacy is chosen.

Testimony is required in a plea bargain bench trial, though it is limited to a statement of the wrongdoing by the defendant.

Editted to add:

The advice of The Watcher should be available to all participants in a hearing, not just the jurors.


Well, he had to pass some on the way to his cell.

_________________

Idylle in exile: the view over the laptop on a bad day
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 3:28 am
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Is provost better than proctor?

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 3:44 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Provost implies a decision-making power which Proctor does not ... I don't know whether that matters in this case because this person will have power to decide about procedure ... to issues orders about procedure as it were.

In our U., the provost is the chief financial officer. In the military, provost refers to the person who is in charge when the soldiers are not on their home base, or something like that ... a sort of subsidiary commander.

Proctor, Monitor and Watcher are synonymous functions, imo.

Counselor and Facilitator imply a more pro-active role, but one of helping rather than deciding.

Provost implies power to make decisions.

Bounder is from JRRT without modern meaning that applies to this office.

Ax, I'm going to open a thread now for an interim vote on the creation and titling of this office and I'll copy this discussion into that thread. I'd like to hear some others' comment on 'provost' - I suspect it connotes more power than we're giving this person but I will add it to the list if others feel it is appropriate. I removed titles to which there has already been more that one objection based on meaning (as opposed to taste), but we can add and subtract before we actually vote.

BTW, the url code is not working so I can't link to the new thread, but the title will be INTERIM VOTE ON NEW OFFICE

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: Tue 10 May , 2005 3:53 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Just trying to link this myself:

Link

Jn, my link works. When Voronwe's link was wrong, Holby diagnosed that he'd left "http:" out of his URL, reposted a corrected link, and it worked. Did you by chance do that, too?

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 4 of 5  [ 97 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Jump to: