board77

APPROVED TEXT
¶3 Hearings and the Selection of a Jury for Hearings

Hearings are held for violations of the by-laws.

Board77 recognizes three kinds of hearings: Hearings for a Community Disruption, Hearings on a Ban, and Hearings to Remove an Administrator or Mayor from Office.

Hearings are convened by an administrator, conducted in a thread in the Jury Room, and decided by a jury of six members.

Jurors are selected in the following manner:
• Jurors will be selected from the pool in the order in which they entered.

•A sufficient number will be selected at the beginning to allow each affected member to contest two jurors and still have seven jurors remaining. For cases involving a single individual, this would be nine potential jurors. No juror may be a current administrator.

•The administrator(s) convening the hearing will confirm with these potential jurors that they are willing and eligible to serve on this case before submitting their names to the involved member(s). Jury duty is voluntary.

• Each member involved will then have the right to contest two of the proposed jurors. They are not required to contest any but they have the right to do so.

• Of the jurors that remain after the selection process, the first six (in order of entry) will hear the case, and one alternate will attend in the event that a regular juror must leave or be removed. No more than six jurors will make the final decision.

Regarding TORN's suggestion on having two levels of offenses, one being enforceable, I was wondering about the possibility of having the first kind of hearing called something that would reflect that distinction:

Hearing on a Serious Violation of By-Laws

Hearing on a Violation of Enforceable By-Laws

??

I would note that, in my view, the "lower" level offense would be something for which there would be no procedures provided -- i.e., in real life, sometimes people are mean and do the "wrong" thing but there's no law against it.

I've posted elsewhere that I like "Community Disruption" because I think that should be the test for whether formal action is necessary: does this violation of the rules disrupt the community?

Violations that don't do that should, as TORN says, have no procedures involved. The posters involved should settle it. If they can't, and it escalates into a community disruption, then action can be taken, but not until then.

I also envisioned no hearings at all for things that we do not consider fully enforceable.

I did work on the Member Rights article last night. Funny that a surprising number of them are quite enforceable, but that might be because my original list was not terribly nitpicky.

I really prefer to get as much of Eligibility and Hearings out of the way before even posting member rights, because people will be distracted by that.

The next big item under Article 2 is what kinds of things will be enforced in what way, i.e. what gets you banned, what gets your posting rights suspended, what gets your PM privelege revoked, etc. and the maximum time limits for these penalties based on the offense. Some of this was done in the Admin article, but they left some for us, too.

That issue seems like it will dovetail with member rights. So if we can just focus on the few decision elements in the Hearing procedures and get those to a vote, this whole question of what is serious and what is not will be next on the agenda.

Jn

I neglected to mention that the ballot looks fine to me. I appreciate your effort in driving us forward, Jn.

dp

TORN wrote:

I would note that, in my view, the "lower" level offense would be something for which there would be no procedures provided -- i.e., in real life, sometimes people are mean and do the "wrong" thing but there's no law against it.

Yes, that was my understanding.

Edit
By 'first kind of hearing', I was referring to the three kinds of hearings mentioned in the draft ballot.

Edit #2

Primula_Baggins wrote:

'I've posted elsewhere that I like "Community Disruption" because I think that should be the test for whether formal action is necessary: does this violation of the rules disrupt the community?

But what is being decided in the hearing? Is the jury deciding whether an action has disrupted the community, or are they deciding whether an enforceable by-law has been violated?

If there's a community disruption, then the purpose of the hearing is to determine why it happened—i.e., whether an enforceable by-law has been violated or not.

I prefer having the name focus on the community rather than on the rules. The rules don't exist for their own sake; they exist to protect the community from disruption. My perspective, anyway.

Cerin: But what is being decided in the hearing? Is the jury deciding whether an action has disrupted the community, or are they deciding whether an enforceable by-law has been violated?

They are deciding whether a by-law has been violated.

The trend so far (in drafting Article 2) has been to make violations very narrow and specific. It does not look as if we will be able to subject people to hearings just for being obnoxious.

I think that Voronwe's point in offering a different name was to emphasize the fact that a violation of the by-law disrupts the community and that is why by-laws are enforced. [edit: Prim, yes, what you said.] I don't believe it was intended to imply that a broader class of offenses were being considered.

Voronwe can correct me on that.

I confess that I liked that softer language at first, but I personally do not want to imply that people can have posting rights suspended or be brought to a hearing for vague perceived disruptions.

Whatever goes into member rights and responsibilities as enforceable should be as well-defined as we can make it, and members should only be 'legally' accountable for those things. Otherwise we'll have to copy Emily Post into the by-laws.

Jn

Ach! sorry to follow myself, but it occurs to me that this confusion is really my fault.

What hearings are held for should in fact be the first sentence of the paragraph, and I am going to add it now because I think it will clarify this whole discussion.

The first sentence should be:

"Hearings are held for violations of the by-laws that disrupt the community."

Does that solve it in the minds of the rest of you? Then one's interpretation of the title does not influence what one thinks a hearing can be called for, and it's only a matter of deciding what you would like the title to emphasize.

Let me double check that those title choices still make sense.

Edit: Well, I did change the title choices because it's not an either/or question, and the title choices implied that it was. I'm afraid that in viewing the title choice as an either/or question I fell into a trap and forgot that the hearings themselves are not either/or questions.

Please read the Ballot again, to confirm that this makes more sense and not less sense.

I agree that the addition helps, Jn.

Primula_Baggins wrote:

If there's a community disruption, then the purpose of the hearing is to determine why it happened—i.e., whether an enforceable by-law has been violated or not.

But as I understand the way we've been talking about convening a hearing, the basis is not whether two admins perceive that there has been a community disruption.

Here is a clarification that Jn offered in another thread, to my concerns about only two admins being able to convene a hearing (bolding pertinent paragraph, but including others for context):

Quote:

Cerin: IF the set of possible member violations of by-laws is larger and more ambiguous than the grounds for removal of an admin (and therefore involving a greater amount of subjectivity) ...

Jnyusa: Ah! I see the logic of this. But actually the grounds for suspending posting rights and banning members are quite narrow and all are specified in the Charter, as are the grounds for removing an admin.

The things that are less well-defined are "violation of member rights," There will be a list of member rights but the jury will still have to decide whether a violation actually occured and I can imagine this being a gray area in some cases.

Thing is, it's not the admins who make this decision. They only have to decide that the original charge is not frivolous; that some member has not complained just to get another member in trouble. It seems to me that if two current admins agree that something really did happen, that ought to be enough. The admins also serve in the order in which they entered the pool so the odds of getting a faction that would be both biased against a particular member and willing to disserve their office are pretty slim.

So according to this, admins just have to determine that a complaint (about an enforceable by-law) is not capricious, not that a complaint rises to the level of a community disruption. I would say that that consideration (whether a complaint rises to the level of a community disruption) is something that will be used to define non-enforceable and enforceable by-laws (re what TORN suggested).

Primula Baggins wrote:

I prefer having the name focus on the community rather than on the rules. The rules don't exist for their own sake; they exist to protect the community from disruption.

I understand that the rules exist to protect the community; perhaps a statement to that effect would be appropriate at the beginning of a listing of the by-laws?

Jnyusa wrote:

The first sentence should be:

"Hearings are held for violations of the by-laws that disrupt the community."

Does that solve it in the minds of the rest of you? Then one's interpretation of the title does not influence what one thinks a hearing can be called for, and it's only a matter of deciding what you would like the title to emphasize.

I think this sentence reflects the idea that there are violations that are considered more serious (ones that cause a community disruption), and that these are the ones for which a hearing can be called to make a determination as to whether an enforceable by-law has been violated.

However, I'm not sure if a violation of an enforceable by-law will necessarily cause a community disruption, so I think specifying a community disruption in that sentence might be problematic, too.

I know that we talked previously about "community disputes" (eligible for hearings) and "individual disputes" (eligible for mediation). Jn, you have a better understanding of what the by-laws and member rights will shape up to be. Do you think that a community dispute (that is, involving a violation of board rules) will necessarily always cause a community disruption? (I am vaguely imagining a situation involving a violation of board rules, that nevertheless remains self-contained between the individuals involved.)

DUH!

I just realized what I'm saying is, that I think the choice should be 'Hearings on a Community Dispute' rather than '... on a Community Disruption'.

' ... on a Community Dispute' (meanig involving board rules, as previously discussed) I could wholeheartedly support.

Jn, you have a better understanding of what the by-laws and member rights will shape up to be. Do you think that a community dispute (that is, involving a violation of board rules) will necessarily always cause a community disruption? (I am vaguely imagining a situation involving a violation of board rules, that nevertheless remains self-contained between the individuals involved.)

Will a violation always cause a disruption ... Yes. But I am looking at it from the other direction. The by-laws define what things we consider to be disruptions of the community. They are the disruptions by definition.

For example:
- if two members are arguing and disrupting a thread and getting nowhere, that's a problem for the Bike Racks. But the minute one of them makes a racial slur, that's a violation of the by-laws and becomes a community issue.

- Members are discussing the legality of bootlegs. One wants to really prosecute, two others think the laws are b.s. No restrictions on this kind of discussion, no matter how vigorously the law is slammed. But the minute one member posts how to get around the law and successfully bootleg, or offers his/her own bootlegs to others, that's a violation of our by-laws and a community issue.

We had big argument over Article 2 with regard to pornography and sexually explicit conversation and use of obscenities and offensive sig pics, etc. because all these things are really gray areas. Also the illegality clauses generated controversy because we're international and laws are different everywhere. So we tried to be as specific as possible, i.e. you can't solicit illegal activity on the board ... but if one member contacts another by email and offers them bootleg CDs that's really not our business as long as we are not creating a board atmosphere that encourages illegal activity.

When I drafted member rights, I tried to take all those opinions into account ... well, at the risk of generating a completely off-topic discussion, this is what I drafted for two or our rights/responsibilities.

Excerpt from Article 3, ¶5: Special Powers of Admins:
• Edit Posts if they contain objectionable content, for example: abuse of another poster, defamatory remarks, pornographic, violent or distasteful content, or advertisement of products [approved April 19, 2005]
• Enact an Immediate Ban for the following offenses if the poster has registered within the last seven days
... 1. Spamming the board with ads
... 2. Spamming the board with porn
• Temporarily suspend posting rights or restrict access to a 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.
[approved April 19, 2005]

My first draft translation into two member rights and responsibilities reads like this:

• You have the right to post without fear of insults that target your nationality, ethnicity, religion, native language, gender or age, and an absolute responsibility to refrain from prejudicial language yourself.

• You have a right to post without confronting advertising spam, pornographic pictures, sexually explicit conversation outside of the age-restricted forum, and pictures or conversations of an offensively violent or distasteful nature. You have a responsibility to use good judgment in your own posts and keep them free of gratuitous advertising, spam that would annoy any reasonable person, and pictures that would disgust or dismay any reasonable person.

What I am trying to do is tie the member rights and responsibilities to specific things we've already forbidden and for which we have specific penalties so that the rights and responsibilities will not be vague additions to things people can be persecuted for, if that makes sense.

Nothing that we've assigned penalty so far has anything to do with arguments among members. It all has to do with things that would significantly alter the character of the board, hence affect the community.

What I've put under 'desirable but not enforceable except by member displeasure' (not titled as such) are things like courteous and respectful treatment of others, the right to express opinion on topics no matter how controversial but respectfully, the right to use adult language coupled with responsibility to post in a contributory manner .... this is not the exact wording, but you get the drift.

Also under 'unenforceable' is the right to be an admin or jury member coupled with a responsibility to participate in governance by voting...

The right to adminship is, actually, an enforceable right, but the Charter calls for some qualitative judgment by the Mayor and by the members. How would you hold a hearing for disagreement about that? That particular article says the Mayor or an admin has to explain the deficiencies to the member and allow them to be corrected ... so this is an area where the Charter plainly intends for the members to work it out through conversation and agreement, not by means of a hearing, even though in a strict sense everyone has the right to enter the admin pool.

This is the way I've been thinking about it. Hope that helps.

Edit: as we cross-posted. None of the violations are technically 'disputes' unless you consider that defending oneself is engaging in a dispute. Technically, what hearings are held for is a violation of the by-laws and nothing else. By adding that they are disruptions of the community we are describing them, not defining them.

Jn

Jnyusa

Thank you for those examples. I'm in complete agreement with you as to when individual actions become community issues (things that would alter the character of the board and therefore affect the community if allowed). The issue is then brought before a jury for consideration (dispute?), as to whether a violation has occurred, and what the penalty should be. I'm not sure about characterizing community issues as disruptions. Certainly they would eventually become disruptions if not dealt with.

Quote:

What I am trying to do is tie the member rights and responsibilities to specific things we've already forbidden and for which we have specific penalties so that the rights and responsibilities will not be vague additions to things people can be persecuted for, if that makes sense.

Yes, that seems like an excellent approach.

Quote:

Edit: as we cross-posted. None of the violations are technically 'disputes' unless you consider that defending oneself is engaging in a dispute. Technically, what hearings are held for is a violation of the by-laws and nothing else.

Yes, I would consider that defending oneself is engaging in a dispute, as to whether a by-law has been violated (which is the charge that has been brought and the question the jury must decide).

Quote:

Voronwe can correct me on that.

Voronwe cannot correct something that is 100% correct already.

Sorry, Cerin, but I can't support "Hearing on a Community Dispute". Dispute implies the type situations between two or more individual members that we have already discussed with the bike racks and mediation processes. As I think most everyone agrees, it is only those situations that disrupt the community that would justify the fairly extreme action of holding a hearing. Hence the suggested name.

And Jn I think that the ballot is another marvel of construction. I never cease to be in awe of you. Your ability to bridge the gap between theory and practice is truly remarkable.

Vorowe - I'm glad you chimed in because I know this issue was the one of most importance to you

Cerin - I understand that the rules exist to protect the community; perhaps a statement to that effect would be appropriate at the beginning of a listing of the by-laws?

Cerin, this is from a much earlier post of yours, and it only hit my now that it might betray the source of a misunderstanding. These articles that we are drafting now are the by-laws. There is not a second category of things called by-laws that will will draft later. So ... starting with Article 1 that we are member moderated board, through the last Article which will probably be about how to amend the charter - those are the by-laws. Some of them are enforced by Hearings, and others are enforced more casually, like by having Bike Racks.

Jn

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:

As I think most everyone agrees, it is only those situations that disrupt the community that would justify the fairly extreme action of holding a hearing.

I'm sorry to be difficult, but I don't see at all that that's what we've been discussing (re how hearings are convened). If what admins are deciding when deciding whether to convene a hearing, is whether the situation has risen to the level of disrupting the community, then I think it should require a poll of all the admins, not just agreement of two of them (since it is a broader and more subjective determination).

Perhaps this will become clearer to me when the enforceable by-laws are defined.

Jnyusa wrote:

But I am looking at it from the other direction. The by-laws define what things we consider to be disruptions of the community. They are the disruptions by definition.

So then that first sentence:

Hearings are held for violations of the by-laws that disrupt the community.

means

Hearings are held for violations of the by-laws (which by their very nature disrupt the community)

rather than

Hearings are held for violations of the by-laws that disrupt the community (but not for those that do not)

What we call the hearings aside, I think the first sentence was less confusing without the addition of the phrase "that disrupt the community".

My understanding is that hearings are held when there is a charge brought that a member has violated the (enforceable) by-laws. The hearing is for the purpose of making a determination, as to whether the member has in fact violated an enforceable by-law, and what the penalty should be.

Is this correct?

(Again, sorry to be difficult.)

My understanding is that hearings are held when there is a charge brought that a member has violated the (enforceable) by-laws. The hearing is for the purpose of making a determination, as to whether the member has in fact violated an enforceable by-law, and what the penalty should be.

Is this correct?

Yes. There are no hearings for 'disruptions' that are not named in the by-laws and described as enforceable, either by specifying a penalty or stating that this is cause for a hearing.

This was the heart of the discussion concerning the Bike Racks. Much as we would like to demand that disputes or arguments be ended, there is simply no way to legislate that. If people can't work out their problems on their own, they will either leave the board because no one will be friends with them or we will have to learn how to live with their unfortunate personalities.

Perhaps it will be better then if I removed the subordinate clause from the first sentence.

But you know, if the title of the paragraph is Hearings on Violations of the By-Laws, then the confusion also disappears. But there's nothing wrong with that being both the title and the first sentence. EDIT: Ach! now I'm getting all confused, too. This is not the title of THIS paragraph. This paragraph is about hearings in general. Yes, OK - Cerin you are right. The first sentence should state simply what hearings are for.

I'm going to change the first sentence, leave the title choices as they are, and you guys can vote for whatever you want to call Hearings for things where the penalty is not a ban.

Jn