board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

¶4: Hearings(Community Disruption): VOTING CLOSED

Post Reply   Page 1 of 6  [ 111 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Author Message
Jnyusa
Post subject: ¶4: Hearings(Community Disruption): VOTING CLOSED
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 1:30 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
APPROVED TEXT

¶4 Procedure for Hearings on a Community Disruption:

The violation of by-laws is called to the attention of the administrators, either because they observe it themselves or because a member reports it.

If action has already been taken by an administrator, such as restriction of posting rights, the administrator notifies the member at that time that a hearing will be held, and the hearing should be convened within three days.

If the problem is brought to the attention of the administrators by another member, two administrators must agree that a hearing is required and the member in question must be notified by email no less than twenty-four hours before the hearing is opened.

The posting rights of the member in question will not be restricted over the course of the hearing on the strength of another member’s report. Only an administrator observing a violation of by-laws directly, or a jury after hearing a case, may impose a penalty on a poster.

When the twenty-hour hour notification period has passed, a thread is started in the Jury Room, titled with the nature of the hearing, for example, “Hearing on Disruption of the RP Forum.”

The first post of that thread will state the reason for the hearing. If two administrators convened the hearing, either one may start the thread but both names should appear at the end of the first post. Full names should be given so that PMs can be sent with ease.

The names of the jurors will be edited in to the first post of the thread and their posting rights will be enabled. The full name should be used so that PMs can be sent with ease.

Ideally, no more than three days should be spent selecting the jury, so that from the first action taken (suspension of rights or appeal from a member) to the opening of the hearing, no more than seven full days should pass in which the posting rights of a member are curtailed without recourse. Administrators and jurors should strive to act promptly and avoid delays.

Once the jury is selected and their names posted in the thread, the administrator(s) may remove themselves from the case and allow the jurors to take over. Administrators should remain alert to the need for changes of permission and deletion of posts that do not belong.

The member for whom the hearing is held may state their side of the case and the jurors may ask questions.

Either posters or jurors may request that witnesses be allowed to post in the thread.

Members who are called as witnesses participate voluntarily but should respond promptly to the request.

When the jury has sufficient information to decide the case, they may call an end to the hearing. They will post in the thread that the hearing is coming to an end twenty-four hours before actually beginning their deliberation so that the member has time to agree or present any additional information.

The purpose of the jury deliberation is to decide whether the member has in fact violated the by-laws or committed a bannable offense beyond any reasonable doubt, and if so, to impose a penalty not to exceed the penalty provided in the by-laws. If no maximum penalty is specified in the by-laws the jurors may use discretion based on the range of penalties contained in the by-laws for similar offenses.

Jury deliberations may be held in private, by PM or email. Jurors should strive to reach a decision within ten days. Agreement by four of the six jurors that a by-law has been violated is required for imposition of a penalty. Four of the six jurors must agree on the duration of the penalty, otherwise the lesser of all penalties considered by them will be imposed.

When the jurors have reached a decision, they will email their decision to the member and then post their decision in the thread twenty-four hours later. Anything they have taken into consideration should be presented honestly when they state their decision.

Any juror holding a minority position may express it in their post

If the jury has decided that the offense was not committed or that no additional penalties should be imposed, any suspended posting rights will be restored to the member within twenty-four hours.

If a penalty is imposed, an administrator will change the necessary permissions within twenty-four hours. Time limits on penalties will be maintained by the Mayor and it is the responsibility of the Mayor to notify administrators when the time limit on a penalty has expired.

If the decision of the jury is to require something of the member, such as removal of a signature picture, the member will comply within twenty-four hours. Members who refuse to abide by a jury decision may be considered for banning.

As soon as the jury has posted their decision and that decision has been implemented, the thread will be locked. At the request of the member, it may be deleted.

Elements of the case may be summarized and preserved in the Archive with the name(s) of the involved member(s) and witnesses deleted.
[approved May 16, 2005]

Last edited by Jnyusa on Tue 17 May , 2005 1:28 am, edited 12 times in total.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 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
 
Friends, I have separated this one paragraph, ¶4, from the larger discussion in this thread:
Assembling Hearing ... in Full

¶5 Procedure for Hearings on a Ban,¶6 Procedure for Hearings to Remove and Administrator and¶8 Appealing the Decision of a Jury all refer back to ¶4 and if we can get the issues of this paragraph resolved, we can put up draft ballots for all four paragraphs.

When this paragraph was first posted, there were a number of items in BLUE that had to be discussed. We were able to either vote or reach general agreement on all of them so I have removed the color markers from the text. These issues were:

• Voted for title, “Hearings on Community Disruptions”

• There would be six members on a jury, and four would be required for a ‘conviction’ and for imposing a penalty. We modified the text so that a 3/3 split decision would result in ‘acquittal,’ and a 3/3 split on the penalty would result in the minimum proposed penalty. (In the U.S. we refer to a jury that cannot reach a decision as ‘a hung jury’ - the text modifications eliminate that possibility for B77 hearings.)

• Voted that the member could contest two jurors

• Agreed that a 24 hour notification period would apply throughout.

We also agreed that a hidden forum should not be created only for jury deliberations because the Admins would be able to see it, and that there might be a need for a new elected official to oversee hearings. We are voting on that provision right now.

What has to be discussed here now is TORN’s proposal that we allow for “Bench Hearings.” This is a term used in the U.S. when an accused person agrees that they have committed the crime and wants a penalty imposed by a judge instead of going through a jury trial. The judge’s place in the courtroom is called ‘the bench’ - hence the name ‘bench trial.’

We do not have to use this title, and we do not have to use a judge. The essence of the proposal is that the member would not have to defend him/herself in a public thread if he/she agreed that something had gone wrong and accepts a penalty for it.

The questions we must answer are these:

1. Could this be used for Hearings on a Ban or only for Hearings on a Community Disruption? If it is used for Hearings on a Ban, it implies that a member can agree to be banned, or demand to be banned by committing some act that would activate a hearing.

2. We have already expressed throughout the membership a strong opposition to one person making decisions in secret, so a judge handing out a secret penalty should not even be considered, in my opion. But, should we convene a panel of administrators? Or use the same six-juror system but without the member’s right to contest and without the public thread? Should we select from the jury pool but only three, perhaps, instead of six? How should this panel be composed?

3. Hearings sometimes arise because members have lodged a complaint against someone. This happens in the RP and TOE forum specifically, and it might happen anywhere on the board. Do the members who lodged the complaint have a right to know the outcome of their complaint? Should they have to confirm their complaint, let’s say, at the beginning of the Hearing so that they at least know that a hearing is being held?

4. Should we hold these deliberations in a hidden forum? The admins will be able to see it, but the admins have to turn permissions on and off so they will know when a penalty is imposed anyway. But a hidden forum also means that the admins will be able to ‘hear’ everything the panel says in its deliberations.

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: Wed 11 May , 2005 3:52 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
It seems we are intending to use a bench trial for only the plea-bargaining aspect (guilty plea) and not for a contested trial (not guilty plea).

1. I have no problem with this covering Hearings on a Ban.


2. Bench trials are not intended to be secret, they are intended to be quick. Since we only intend to use this for uncontested hearings, it seems reasonable to just have a single admin to accept the plea. In RL uncontested trials, the penalty is agreed upon before the trial, but the judge can change it. It seems the RL roles of prosecutor and judge are getting conflated here in the role we are discussing being performed by an admin, so it may make sense to trust in the judgment of more than 1 admin. One of the intended purposes of a bench trial is to eliminate the jury, and I see no reason to introduce a jury here.

The complication this introduces is that the negotiation of the penalty is an informal, unseen process in RL, between the prosecutor and the defendant, before the hearing.


- a closed hearing
- one or more admins presiding
- negotiation of a penalty
- if a penalty cannot be negotiated, a full hearing must be convened
- admission of guilt by the defendant
- acceptance of a guilty plea by a majority of admins
- archiving of the hearing, without the bargaining over the penalty.

In RL secrecy in judicial proceedings exists for juvenile defendants, national security, and little else. The only privacy it affords is the lower visibility from its shorter duration. The only hidden aspect is the negotiation over the penalty.


3. I see no reason for hearings for disputes between members. The bike racks serve that purpose. If they can't resolve their dispute, even with mediation, I can't forsee them accepting an imposed decision. These hearings should only be used for violations of board rules, not subjective disputes.


4. I see no reason to consider secrecy or privacy other than the consequence of an abbreviated process. The offense should be publicly acknowledged and the penalty should be public.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 4:57 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Thanks, Idylle.

I see no reason for hearings for disputes between members.

I'm not sure what this refers to. We did away with the idea of solving member disputes by hearing. My reference to the membership above is a member reporting a violation of by-laws to the admins, so that the admins might not have observed it directly. We require two admins to agree that something happened worthy of a hearing, in such a case, before a hearing can be convened.

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: Wed 11 May , 2005 5:20 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
Jnyusa,

My misunderstanding of what you said. I thought that was the case, but I interpreted "lodged a complaint" more broadly than violation of the rules. Sorry. With that understanding, this is my revised "3".

3. I see no reason for secrecy or privacy concerning the existence of a hearing, the reason for it, or the outcome. All members, including the complainant, should be able to know.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 6:53 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
I'm disturbed by the inclusion of the phrase 'disruption to the community' in the first sentence.

The violation of by-laws or disruption to the community is called to the attention of the administrators, either because they observe it themselves or because a member reports it.

As I understand the discussion we had on what to call the hearings, it was stated that a violation of the by-laws essentially is a disruption to the community. It seems to me that the first sentence says that there are two grounds on which to convene a hearing -- a violation of the by-laws or a disruption to the community.

This is problematic to me because it is inconsistent with my understanding, and because the phrase 'disruption to the community' is rather vague, outside of the specific context we previously discussed.

IF my understanding is correct, then I believe the phrase 'disruption to the community' in the first sentence should be parenthetical.

The violation of by-laws (disruption to the community) is called to the attention of the administrators, either because they observe it themselves or because a member reports it.

If my understanding is not correct, then I am very confused as to the grounds admins have for convening a hearing, and I will need someone to explain it to me.


If the problem is brought to the attention of the administrators by another member, two administrators must agree that a hearing is required and the member in question must be notified by email no less than twenty-four hours before the hearing is opened.
I wonder if we need some clarification here, as to the basis for the agreement (that a hearing is required). That is, the admins are not determining that a violation of the by-laws has occurred (that is the jury's job), just that the charge is not capricious? Is this correct? I find that it is hard for me to imagine (perhaps because of not having a firm grasp of potential offenses) a real case. How would it be determined that a charge is capricious, without assessing whether a by-law has been violated? Is this really essentially the same thing?

Could someone with a firmer grasp of the potential offenses construct a hypothetical case?

Regarding 'bench hearings', I don't think we should continue to refer to them as bench hearings. We aren't talking about evidence being vetted before a single individual, and that individual reaching a determination. It seems to me we're talking about plea bargains. Can we refer to this issue as plea bargains?

This is a term used in the U.S. when an accused person agrees that they have committed the crime and wants a penalty imposed by a judge instead of going through a jury trial.
Is this the case? I don't think a bench trial is limited to a guilty plea. It is essentially, if I understand correctly, the person on trial deciding the judge will be the jury, but the evidence is still presented, and the judge determines guilt or innocence.

As to the panel who would decide the penalty in a plea bargain (if that phrase is acceptable), I think it makes sense that jurors not be involved, but it does make sense that the Loremaster be involved (if that office is approved). (I really will be dismayed if the Mayor ends up having this role. In that case, I don't think the Mayor should be involved.)


If the member opts for a full hearing, when the twenty-hour hour notification period has passed, a thread is started in the Jury Room, titled with the nature of the hearing, for example, “Hearing on Disruption of the RP Forum.”
I like the idea that all such decisions would be immediately referred to the Loremaster, who would have the job of starting these threads.

The first post of that thread will state the reason for the hearing. If two administrators convened the hearing, either one may start the thread but both names should appear at the end of the first post. Full names should be given so that PMs can be sent with ease.
Or alternatively, (as above) the matter could be immediately referred to the Loremaster, who would have the job of starting these threads. S/he could include the names of the admins who decided a hearing was warranted.

Once the jury is selected and their names posted in the thread, the administrator(s) may remove themselves from the case and allow the jurors to take over. Administrators should remain alert to the need for changes of permission and deletion of posts that do not belong. Any procedural questions raised by the jury should be referred to the office now up for a vote who will be responsible for ensuring that hearings conform to the by-laws of the Charter.
I would say it would be the Loremaster's job to alert the administrators to the need for changes in permissions. In other words, the admins do not need to follow the hearing closely if they don't desire to, the Loremaster would be responsible for the hearing. That means questions would not need to be referred to the Loremaster, s/he would already be observing.

Since I lack an understanding of the various fora and permissions, and admin powers, perhaps what I'm suggesting isn't workable. I think it would simplify things if it were made workable, that is, that the Loremaster not require the intervention of an admin in order to be able to do his/her duty. (I'm not suggesting the Loremaster be given any of the powers of admin beyond that which s/he needs to carry out his/her duties.)


Jury deliberations may be held in private, by PM or email. Jurors should strive to reach a decision within ten days.
I think this should read, "Jury deliberations are held in private, etc."


When the jurors have reached a decision, they will email their decision to the member and then post their decision in the thread twenty-four hours later.
How did this work in the one arbitration we had? Did the jurors agree on one of them summarizing the outcome, or did each juror write a separate decision, which were then sent in aggregate to the member and posted in the thread? Do we want some guidelines here?


Anything they have taken into consideration should be presented honestly when they state their decision.
This means that the private deliberations are summarized as part of the decision?


Elements of the case may be summarized and preserved in the Archive with the name(s) of the involved member(s) and witnesses deleted.
Have we discussed whose responsibility this is? Should it be the Loremaster's?


1. Could this be used for Hearings on a Ban or only for Hearings on a Community Disruption? If it is used for Hearings on a Ban, it implies that a member can agree to be banned, or demand to be banned by committing some act that would activate a hearing.
If someone wants to be banned so badly that they would deliberately commit a bannable offense so as to be able to agree to a plea-bargain, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to. I think the unattractiveness of this possibility is outweighed by the desirability of someone being able to avoid a public hearing on a ban if they so desire.


2. We have already expressed throughout the membership a strong opposition to one person making decisions in secret, so a judge handing out a secret penalty should not even be considered, in my opion. But, should we convene a panel of administrators? Or use the same six-juror system but without the member’s right to contest and without the public thread? Should we select from the jury pool but only three, perhaps, instead of six? How should this panel be composed?
I do not think jurors should be involved in the plea bargain. I think the admins (or a majority of 3 admins) plus the Loremaster should decide on the penalty. (However, if the Loremaster is voted down, then I don't think the Mayor should be involved, just the admins.)

However, I am disturbed by the idea that there would be no public record of this exercise of power. I can understand a person's desire to avoid a situation be publicly vetted, which desire would be met by the privacy of the plea bargain procedure. But I can see no argument against having a simple statement in one of the readable fora (Archive Forum?) recording the facts of the case, that is, the offense and the penalty incurred and the date, which would remain up for the duration of the penalty. This would insure that power is not being exercised in secret.


3. Hearings sometimes arise because members have lodged a complaint against someone. This happens in the RP and TOE forum specifically, and it might happen anywhere on the board. Do the members who lodged the complaint have a right to know the outcome of their complaint? Should they have to confirm their complaint, let’s say, at the beginning of the Hearing so that they at least know that a hearing is being held?
Yes, and yes.


4. Should we hold these deliberations in a hidden forum? The admins will be able to see it, but the admins have to turn permissions on and off so they will know when a penalty is imposed anyway. But a hidden forum also means that the admins will be able to ‘hear’ everything the panel says in its deliberations.
I think this is an excellent idea, if the admins are in charge of deciding the penalty. I'm not sure I would support it if a jury is brought in.

Note: I responded to points as I went along, and then noticed that Idylle had offered some similar comments. However, considering the expressions of confusion that have been made of late, perhaps repetition will help rather than hurt, so I've just left my comments as is.


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 6:59 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
On 'bench' hearings – accused person agrees to having commited an offense

01. Both is fine with me

02. I think in order to 'fast-track' a bench hearing falling back on the Admins might be the best way or, I'm also quite happy with just selecting the first 3 jurors up from the jury pool (as they appear on the list). In either case, I like the number of 3 people handling this – six is too cumbersome and unnecessary if the accused agrees to having commited an offense to start with

03. Do the members who lodged the complaint have a right to know the outcome of their complaint? This is tricky – but after some contemplation I would rather lean towards a 'no'. Members have the right to know that their complaint has been dealt with and how, but not the particulars of the 'punishment' (if any).

Should they have to confirm their complaint, let’s say, at the beginning of the Hearing so that they at least know that a hearing is being held? I would definitely say YES to that. Having a summary posted later in the archives would go a long way to let people see just 'how' things went without breaking any confidentiality issues.

04. I still hold that the opportunity should be given to have the deliberations of the jury in a 'secret' forum but I would leave that as a choice to the Jurors next to email and/or PM.

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢ [ img ]
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 7:59 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Cerin: I'm disturbed by the inclusion of the phrase 'disruption to the community' in the first sentence.

That's a typo on my part. Those were the two name choices we voted on, and I originally showed both of them in the text. When I edited the text I removed the colors but forgot to correct places where both names still appeared.

I'll fix the typo.

How would it be determined that a charge is capricious, without assessing whether a by-law has been violated?

The admins function like a grand jury, if I understand grand juries correctly. A member complains that something was done - let's say a pejorative racial comment was made and then erased. It would be the job of the admin to obtain confirmation of the original posted comment and not just take one member's word for it, otherwise members could accuse one another of things that had not happened.

perhaps what I'm suggesting isn't workable.

It probably is workable, but right now we're split down the middle on the Loremaster.

Jury deliberations are held in private, etc

Yes. If we require privacy we should say so.

This means that the private deliberations are summarized as part of the decision?

This was the transparency requirement for which the pre-committee membership expressed a very strong preference.

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: Wed 11 May , 2005 8:18 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
On hearings, Cerin wrote:
Quote:
IF my understanding is correct, then I believe the phrase 'disruption to the community' in the first sentence should be parenthetical.
I think "disruption to the community" seems redundant and should be removed.
Quote:
That is, the admins are not determining that a violation of the by-laws has occurred (that is the jury's job), just that the charge is not capricious?
I think it is implied that the admins agree the behavior is suspect. I don't mind it being more explicit, although I don't see it as necessary.
Policemen do this everyday.
Quote:
I don't think a bench trial is limited to a guilty plea.
As I have said several times before, we seem to be talking about the plea-bargaining use of a bench trial. I have no trouble calling it what it is, a plea-bargain.


On the role of a judge, Cerin wrote:
Quote:
...it does make sense that the Loremaster be involved
Quote:
I like the idea that all such decisions would be immediately referred to the Loremaster, who would have the job of starting these threads.
Quote:
the matter could be immediately referred to the Loremaster, who would have the job of starting these threads
Quote:
I would say it would be the Loremaster's job to alert the administrators to the need for changes in permissions. In other words, the admins do not need to follow the hearing closely if they don't desire to, the Loremaster would be responsible for the hearing. That means questions would not need to be referred to the Loremaster, s/he would already be observing.

Quote:
that is, that the Loremaster not require the intervention of an admin in order to be able to do his/her duty. (I'm not suggesting the Loremaster be given any of the powers of admin beyond that which s/he needs to carry out his/her duties.)
Quote:
Have we discussed whose responsibility this is? Should it be the Loremaster's?
Quote:
I think the admins (or a majority of 3 admins) plus the Loremaster should decide on the penalty.
First, you haven't spent much time in courtrooms. The judge falls asleep when there is a period without objections. :tired: There is a whole crew in the courtroom to keep the judge on track.

Seriously, I mentioned the role of a true judge early on and reduced role to only being responsible for answering procedural questions from either party, because there seemed to be no interest in the full role. You are assigning a host of responsibilities to "loremaster". Many of these are normally the responsibility of the appointed and independently elected officials who surround the court, like the clerk (elected), prosecutor (elected), bailliff (appointed), recorder (appointed). Some overstep the other roles we have already defined.

I would not be disappointed to have a real judge, as a keeper of the process, as in Anglo-Saxon law. Most of the responsibilities you are willing to allocate to the judge are those of the court, over which the judge presides. I thought that option was discarded. I would be very disappointed ti discover that the whole reason for discarding the idea of a judge was merely the name and now that we have another name, it is acceptable to discuss reclaiming the role.

Didn't Shakespeare say something about roses?

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 8:42 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
IdylleSeethes wrote:
I think it is implied that the admins agree the behavior is suspect.
Thank you, that seems an excellent way to think about it.

Quote:
First, you haven't spent much time in courtrooms.
I have never set foot in a courtroom. :)

So Idylle, I've (inadvertently) assigned duties to the Loremaster, that wouldn't belong to a judge, but would belong to other members of the court who are there to assist the judge?

So assuming that the other office (Loremaster) is approved (and I know that is by no means certain), would you object to those duties referred to above being assigned to the Loremaster (since obviously we can't elect/appoint all those auxiliary positions)?

If you would object to those duties being assigned to the Loremaster, would your objection be on principle (that the duties are inappropriate to that office as we described it), or would you object because we declined to label the position as 'judge' (and giving the Loremaster those responsibilities would effectively make that position more like a judge)?


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 8:45 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Sort of a side question.

Could a member decline to be added to the admin list, but agree to be added to the mediator and jury lists?


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 9:03 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
As I have said before, I can easily picture a situation where a member disrupts the community in a way that is not covered by the by-laws at the time. I doubt that we will be able to think of every possibility. That's why I think the original language:
Quote:
The violation of by-laws or disruption to the community is called to the attention of the administrators, either because they observe it themselves or because a member reports it.
Either should not have been changed or should have been changed to:
Quote:
The violation of by-laws or other disruption to the community is called to the attention of the administrators, either because they observe it themselves or because a member reports it.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 9:18 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:
As I have said before, I can easily picture a situation where a member disrupts the community in a way that is not covered by the by-laws at the time.
I don't recall discussion of the idea of convening a hearing for reasons other than a violation of the by-laws.

Voronwe, could you describe a hypothetical example of this sort of situation, and why it would not be a matter for Bike Racks if a violation of a by-law is not involved?

(This is the point of confusion for which I sought clarification in the discussion of what to call this type of hearing.)


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 9:24 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Good idea to give this a seperate thread, Jny - much less scary to read up on! :D

Cerin, could you explain what a plea bargain is, please?
(I mean its definition when used in Legalese - I think I understand what your idea for the procedure is.) :)

I think you are tending to give an awful lot of real power to the Loremaster - if the office is voted for, I hope that's not what it will be like.
Because, the way I see it, if the Loremaster were given the power to change permissions he would be an admin - and, in your scenario, one in power for a year, who doesn't have to involve his fellow admins in many things.

Some comments on the questions in the second post:
Quote:
1. Could this be used for Hearings on a Ban or only for Hearings on a Community Disruption? If it is used for Hearings on a Ban, it implies that a member can agree to be banned, or demand to be banned by committing some act that would activate a hearing.
This is not as easy as it looks, I think.

Basically, I'd say yes - if someone commits a bannable offense but doesn't want a long hearing, why not save ourselves the trouble.

But in his initial post about this, TORN had mentioned people who want to be banned. We currently don't ban people on request anymore, and I think that's a good thing, because I wouldn't want to ban and unban (which we did, too, because after all, they hadn't done anything wrong) people every other week as it suits them.
If we said that someone could opt for a ban without a hearing, that might mean we encourage someone who wants to be banned to commit a bannable offense.
An obligatory hearing would prevent that.

And another aspect: IIRC we are saying that in case of a complete ban there should be a vote of the membership before it can take effect.
But if the person opted for this bench trial/plea bargain (I'm still hoping we can come up with a better name), would the membership vote still happen?

(No solution, just further confusion, I'm afraid.)

Quote:
2. We have already expressed throughout the membership a strong opposition to one person making decisions in secret, so a judge handing out a secret penalty should not even be considered, in my opion. But, should we convene a panel of administrators? Or use the same six-juror system but without the member’s right to contest and without the public thread? Should we select from the jury pool but only three, perhaps, instead of six? How should this panel be composed?
I agree - no role of judge, no secret decisions.
But I think a jury goes against the idea of this kind of judgement-finding, too.
I think it should be a panel of admins, with the loremaster/mayor to oversee that everything goes right.
Not sure if it needs to involve all the admins - maybe just the first three who are around.

I don't understand why Cerin said the Loremaster should be involved, but the Mayor shouldn't.
The Loremaster's only job would be to see that procedures are followed correctly and the reason I voted against the Loremaster-office is because I think with a Mayoral office that lasts a year and requires the office-holder to be very familiar with the charter and all our processes, that overseeing job is for him to do.
So, I think in order to make sure that nothing fishy goes on in such a bench trial, there should be someone who's just watching the procedure. Whether that's the Loremaster or the Mayer differs only in the name, IMO.

So, on the whole, I think this would be fairly fuss-free: if the member agrees to being guilty and to accept a penalty, they can't really demand to have their penalty imposed by a specially chosen committee. However, in order to prevent partiality, it should be more than one admin.
And someone to see that the penalty imposed is fair in accordance with whatever penalties we decide on and that all went right according to procedure.
Quote:
3. Hearings sometimes arise because members have lodged a complaint against someone. This happens in the RP and TOE forum specifically, and it might happen anywhere on the board. Do the members who lodged the complaint have a right to know the outcome of their complaint? Should they have to confirm their complaint, let’s say, at the beginning of the Hearing so that they at least know that a hearing is being held?
Definitely yes to the latter.

As to knowing the outcome, I agree with IS:
Quote:
4. I see no reason to consider secrecy or privacy other than the consequence of an abbreviated process. The offense should be publicly acknowledged and the penalty should be public.
Not sure how that should happen (i.e. where it should be made public), but I agree with the idea.

I'm not sure I'm being very clear, so I should add that I basically agree with what IS said in his first post here, under #2.
Quote:
4. Should we hold these deliberations in a hidden forum? The admins will be able to see it, but the admins have to turn permissions on and off so they will know when a penalty is imposed anyway. But a hidden forum also means that the admins will be able to ‘hear’ everything the panel says in its deliberations.
If only admins are involved that question doesn't apply.
But even if it's only admins, I don't think there should be a hidden forum.
I think having such a forum in the first place goes against our transparency-ideal. Besides, there wouldn't be much deliberation, would there?
Just a statement of what happened and the guilty plea. The admins could briefly deliberate in private, just like a jury, and post the penalty agreed upon for all to see.

My two cents, so far. :)

_________________

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
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 9:27 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
Cerin,

Yes.

No.

Maybe.

In my various careers, definition and precedence have always been important. Names have meaning. Not intrinsically, but by convention to assist us in discussing things with each other. One of the problems with cross cultural discussion is that underlying definitions differ between cultures. In the current discussion, I pointed this out earlier in relationship to the role of a judge. A judge under Anglo-Saxon law has a far different role than in Roman law. Roman is important because many continental European legal systems are derived from it. I was confused by the European objections (even more by the American) until I remembered this difference. Not only is there is a difference in the definition of the judge, but also in the primary responsibility of the judicial system. For the US, procedure is more important than justice. That's why criminals get out on technicalities. In Roman law justice seems more important than procedure, although to this US mind, I'm not sure how you assure justice without assuring the integrity of the process. This leads to little differences in the systems, like a US judge presiding over any kind of case (procedure is important) and European judges specializing in particular types (substance is important). The French judge I spoke of earlier has only presided over employment issues and probably always will.

My concern about the current discussion is we abandoned the role of judge (Anglo-Saxon definition) and placed a part of the responsibility in a newly defined role (loremaster?). Having done that, we are now entertaining returning some of the other responsibilities discarded with the judge role to the new role of loremaster. So, why didn't we just say we wanted a judge, rather than taking the circuitous route. It seems the old role of judge may be acceptable just because we renamed it. It should have just been a discussion about renaming and tweaking, then.

It's all moot if we don't have either. I might take up Voronwe's mention of "Imperious Leader" if we concentrate the power in the Mayor.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 9:40 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
IdylleSeethes wrote:
In the current discussion, I pointed this out earlier in relationship to the role of a judge. A judge under Anglo-Saxon law has a far different role than in Roman law.
Quote:
So, why didn't we just say we wanted a judge, rather than taking the circuitous route. It seems the old role of judge may be acceptable just because we renamed it. It should have just been a discussion about renaming and tweaking, then.
Yes, you could say it's just a job of re-naming.

The reason we can't have a judge is because of what you said above.
I guess there is something to a name after all - for me it wouldn't make sense to call someone a judge, when all it is, is an overseer of procedure without decision-making power. If that's how the role of judge is seen in some countries, that doesn't make a difference for me, but just adds to the confusion.

For me, it would be very helpful if we didn't start from locally restricted, given definitions in the first place, but just thought about what kind of office or rule we need - and then find a name for it.
Completely irrespective of any real life precedent!

_________________

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
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 9:45 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
truehobbit,

A plea-bargain is an arrangement between the defendant and the prosecutor that requires the defendant to admit to the charge in a return for an agreed upon sentence (penalty).

Once the agreement is reached, it is jointly presented by the prosecution and the defense to the court (the judge) for approval. Generally it is accepted by the court, but it is possible for the court to reject it.

Voronwe should verify this, but in some courts, a judge can accept the guilty plea, reject the sentence, and impose his own.

The prosecutor, in a Federal Court, is an employee of the Attorney General who is appointed by the President. State court systems vary, but there is almost always an elected official who serves in the prosecutorial role. This is usually the County Prosecutor, or the County Attorney. Sometimes there is a State level prosecutor who may be elected or appointed. Kentucky has Commonwealth Attorneys. There are a few variations. Pennsylvania has a Family Court System with prosecutors more closely aligned with the court. There is the Friend of the Court in Michigan who is between the prosecutor and the Court, much like the Clerk of the Court. I'll stop, I've probably gone too far already.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 9:47 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
truehobbit,

erw05-w jlsajfl09 0934rpja Hklkljul.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 9:54 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
IdylleSeethes wrote:
truehobbit,

A plea-bargain is an arrangement between the defendant and the prosecutor that requires the defendant to admit to the charge in a return for an agreed upon sentence (penalty).
Ah, thanks! :)
Hmmh, we don't want that, do we?

I don't think the defendant should haggle about the penalty.
Quote:
I'll stop, I've probably gone too far already.
LOL, yes, I don't think we should just pick something from a buffet of procedures in every corner of the globe. ;)
Although "Friend of the court" is rather cute! :D
Quote:
erw05-w jlsajfl09 0934rpja Hklkljul.
Er - don't worry, IS - I'm sure it'll pass and you'll get better soon! :P ;)

_________________

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
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 May , 2005 10:07 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
truehobbit wrote:
Cerin, could you explain what a plea bargain is, please?
Well, keeping in mind that I'm the one who has never set foot in a courtroom :D this is what I understand of plea bargains.

Someone is charged with a crime, and they have an attorney who prepares their defense, and the district attorney (representing the state) prepares the prosecution, and then those attorneys get together to see if they can avoid a trial. The way they avoid a trial, is to have the accused admit guilt and accept a pre-determined penalty, usually a much lighter penalty than what the judge or jury would impose if the person went to trial and were found guilty.

As I understand it, even people who are innocent of the crime accept plea bargains in order to get off more lightly than if they were to be convicted, but they must still stipulate to their guilt in order to accept the plea bargain.

Hope that helps (and is basically correct)!

Edit Oops, see I cross-posted with Idylle.

Quote:
I think you are tending to give an awful lot of real power to the Loremaster - if the office is voted for, I hope that's not what it will be like.
Because, the way I see it, if the Loremaster were given the power to change permissions he would be an admin - and, in your scenario, one in power for a year, who doesn't have to involve his fellow admins in many things.
This is the problem in my not understanding 'permissions.' To me, the things I was describing don't entail any real power, just the ability to oversee the hearings without having to pester admins. S/he would just have power to change permissions pertaining to hearings.

But I'm happy to forget all that if it is too problematic (and may have to anyway, if the new office is defeated). I was just trying to stick to the 'keep it simple' admonition. My reasoning was, if there is an office for overseeing hearings, logically that should eliminate the admins from having to oversee them also.


Thank you, Idylle.
Quote:
Having done that, we are now entertaining returning some of the other responsibilities discarded with the judge role to the new role of loremaster. So, why didn't we just say we wanted a judge, rather than taking the circuitous route.
Well to be accurate, it is not we who are entertaining returning some of the other responsibilities previously discarded, to the new role of loremaster. I made those suggestions, blissfully ignorant of the fact that I was re-introducing judicial duties.
Quote:
It seems the old role of judge may be acceptable just because we renamed it. It should have just been a discussion about renaming and tweaking, then.
Yes, I think it could have been, if we'd all had the understanding you have. But I needed to go the full circuit in order to reach my current level of understanding. :)

Quote:
It's all moot if we don't have either. I might take up Voronwe's mention of "Imperious Leader" if we concentrate the power in the Mayor.
Yes. If the new position is defeated, I believe I'll be reversing my previous position, and advocating that the admins choose from among themselves someone to oversee each hearing. I don't think the Mayor should have any part of it.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 6  [ 111 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Jump to: