board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

¶5: Bans: VOTING CLOSED

Post Reply   Page 1 of 3  [ 52 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 3 »
Author Message
Jnyusa
Post subject: ¶5: Bans: VOTING CLOSED
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 3:39 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
APPROVED TEXT

¶5 Procedure for Hearings on a Ban:

Hearings on a Ban are convened and conducted in the same manner as Hearings on a Community Disruption, except that a recommendation by a jury to ban a member is not final.

If the recommendation of the jury is to ban the member, the members at large will then vote on whether or not to accept this recommendation. The vote will be held in the Business Forum for ten days.

If the vote of the membership is tied, the recommendation of the jury will hold.

If the recommendation to ban is overturned by a vote of the membership, the poster will be on three-month probation. If new bannable offenses are committed during that period, a new jury will be convened according to the same terms as above, but this time the decision of the jury will be final.

The Hearing thread will be locked as soon as: (a) the poster has not been banned by the jury, or (b) the vote of the membership has concluded, or (c) a probation period has expired, whichever of these comes last.

The locked thread may be deleted at the request of the member.

Hearings to reverse a ban do not require a vote of the membership. Conditions under which these hearings may take place are given in Article 3, ¶5.

Elements of these cases may be summarized and preserved in the Archive with the member’s name deleted.
[approved May 17, 2005]

Last edited by Jnyusa on Tue 17 May , 2005 1:01 pm, edited 9 times in total.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 3:44 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
No problems with this. I could also support a shorter probationary period.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 3:52 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Cerin: please suggest the shorter period you prefer.

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: Fri 13 May , 2005 4:18 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Considering comments that have been made regarding the life of the internet, I think a one-month period might be sufficient.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 4:31 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Being added now. :)

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
laureanna
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 8:07 pm
Triathlete
Offline
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed 26 Jan , 2005 2:08 am
Location: beachcombing
 
Realistically, how long will the potential banee be confined to the Bike Racks, while the various jury selections, hearings, votings, etc. are proceding?

When the membership votes after watching the jury deliberate, they are essentially selecting between these two options:

1. Yes, we agree with the jury that the person committed a bannable offense.

2. No, we disagree with the jury. The person did not commit any bannable offenses. The person is innocent. BUT, if the person does something in the next X months that is considered to be a bannable offense by TPTB, a new jury will convene and hear this new allegation, and will make a decision as to whether it is a bannable offense or not, without our vote.

I guess I would want to have a short probation. Say 1 month.

_________________

Well, I'm back.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 8:48 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
laureanna: how long will the potential banee be confined

Ideally no more than seven days.

Did you ask that question in this thread? (I got a bit lost)

_________________

"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: Fri 13 May , 2005 8:48 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Jn, from something you said a few days ago (and sorry, I forget where), I got the impression you were assuming this would be the procedure even for members being banned from single forums. Do I understand correctly? Or is this just the procedure for boardwide bans? I hope the second—if not, I've misunderstood right along here. Specifically, I don't think banning someone from ToE or the RP forum should require a boardwide vote.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 8:55 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Or is this just the procedure for boardwide bans? I hope the second

I hope so too. I assumed this was only for board-wide bans.

People have also referred to board-wide suspension of posting rights, which I take to mean confinement to the Bike Racks. We should be careful, I guess, that we don't confuse these two things.

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: Fri 13 May , 2005 9:49 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
Cerin,

Thanks for the suggestion.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
laureanna
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 9:54 pm
Triathlete
Offline
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed 26 Jan , 2005 2:08 am
Location: beachcombing
 
I'm still trying to figure out the time line for being on probation:

1. Person does something that someone considers bannable.
2. Someone notices, notifies an admin.
3. Admin makes the call, or maybe waits to talk to another admin.
4. "Offender" is confined to bikeracks, all posting rights suspended, except under very formal conditions within the procedings.
5. Mayor rounds up some jury members.
6. Jury convenes and hears out the "offender".
7. Jury deliberates, votes, and decides to ban.
8. Membership votes on the ban for 10 days.
9. Votes are tallied and "offender" declared innocent, but on probation for X months.

How long do the first 8 steps take? Step 8 alone is 10 days. Even if not found guilty of a bannable offense, it looks to me like the "offender" could be banned from all posting on B77 (except at the hearing) for at least 3 weeks. I'm just trying to clear this up in my mind so that the ban period is similar in magnitude to the probation period.

_________________

Well, I'm back.


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 11:10 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
laureanna wrote:

When the membership votes after watching the jury deliberate, they are essentially selecting between these two options:

1. Yes, we agree with the jury that the person committed a bannable offense.

2. No, we disagree with the jury. The person did not commit any bannable offenses. The person is innocent. BUT, if the person does something in the next X months that is considered to be a bannable offense by TPTB, a new jury will convene and hear this new allegation, and will make a decision as to whether it is a bannable offense or not, without our vote.
I'm not so sure that these are the alternatives.
The way I understand it, the vote is not meant to reflect whether the members agree or disagree on the guilt - if they did that, then we'd have to put all jury decisions to the vote.

So, I think if a jury finds guilt is confirmed, then that stands - the question to the membership is just whether they think the offense is big enough to warrant a ban, or whether a probation wouldn't be more suitable - giving the person a chance in spite of guilt!

For this reason (and also, I guess, because this will probably help a popular member more than an unknown one) I think three months are a minimum of probation!
Actually, I'd prefer six months.

I hope I am understanding it correctly, though, that probation means the member can keep all his or her posting rights during the time?
So, it's like no penalty at all. The probation then has to make sure that this trust is merited and the bannable behaviour is nothing the member typically indulges in. A month is much too short for showing that, I think.

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 11:14 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I agree with Hobby.

Probation should be no burden at all if the person truly doesn't mean to commit any more bannable offenses. But a month isn't long enough to demonstrate that, to my mind.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
laureanna
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 11:19 pm
Triathlete
Offline
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed 26 Jan , 2005 2:08 am
Location: beachcombing
 
Actually, that makes much more sense to me TH! Thank you. If that is the correct interpretation, then the vote is more like this:

The jury has determined that there is an offense, and in this case, the jury has recommended a ban.
1. Let's ban the person.
2. Let's not ban the person. But if TPTB determine that he/she does something else wrong during probation, he/she gets another hearing. If the jury decides to ban at this second hearing, we (the general population) won't be voting on it.

I feel much more comfortable extending probation to someone that everyone agrees is guilty.

_________________

Well, I'm back.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 11:32 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
laureanna, I would also agree with Hobby's interpretation. It's an opportunity for the membership to say they just don't want someone banned for what they did.

Regarding your time frame question:
1. Person does something that someone considers bannable.
2. Someone notices, notifies an admin.
3. Admin makes the call, or maybe waits to talk to another admin.
Starting from this point:
4. "Offender" is confined to bikeracks, all posting rights suspended, except under very formal conditions within the procedings.
5. Mayor rounds up some jury members.
Ideally no more than seven days to this point, taking into account that the member needs this time to contest jurors
6. Jury convenes and hears out the "offender".
What's happening in this period is that the accused member is explaining themselves to the jury, so the member has some control over the length of the hearing
7. Jury deliberates, votes, and decides to ban.
Ideally not more than ten days. And the penalty may take into account the length of time the member has already had posting rights restricted.
8. Membership votes on the ban for 10 days.
9. Votes are tallied and "offender" declared innocent, but on probation for X months.

So it takes about a month to get someone banned
I should say, it could take up to a month.

Th: Actually, I'd prefer six months [probation] ...I hope I am understanding it correctly, though, that probation means the member can ...

I'll add this option. And yes, your understanding is correct. Posting rights are not restricted during this time period. "Probation" means you're free, but your freedom can be taken away if you use it unwisely.

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: Sat 14 May , 2005 12:25 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
truehobbit wrote:
So, I think if a jury finds guilt is confirmed, then that stands - the question to the membership is just whether they think the offense is big enough to warrant a ban, or whether a probation wouldn't be more suitable
Actually, I think it could reflect either laureanna's suggestion, or this point of view. That is, some of the membership might disagree with the finding of guilt, some of the membership might agree with the finding of guilt but disagree with the penalty. Unless of course, there is instruction given to the membership at the time of the vote.

I had asked for clarification on the purpose of the probationary period, and I understood it to be that the probationary period disallows the possibility that the decisions of subsequent banning hearings could be overturned. This eliminates the possibility of the same cantankerous member triggering overturned penalty hearing after overturned penalty hearing; s/he could only trigger two within a certain time period, and the second would definitely carry the imposed penalty.

So in my mind it isn't about giving people second chances -- if the membership overturns a verdict, the person is free and clear -- but about preventing repeated hearings being triggered by someone determined to be troublesome. Since its practical effect depends on BOTH the membership overturning a verdict and THEN the member re-offending, it seems to me that a shorter probationary period serves the purpose just as well as a longer one, for the person who is being purposefully disruptive (or has an unfortunate proclivity for putting their foot in it).

In other words, if the probationary period is one month, then if the person offends once more within one month after their initial overturned verdict, then they will likely be banned for a certain length of time. If the probationary period is three months, then if the person offends once more within three months of their initial overturned verdict, they will likely be banned for a certain length of time. The longer the probationary period, the less likely, it seems to me, that we are actually applying the probation for the purpose for which it was intended (which is to stymie repeat offenders from tying up the hearing system).

Now if the probationary period is really meant to be a stigma/penalty type of statement, then I think a longer period of time makes more sense (though I'm not sure I agree with that use of probation for a hearing verdict that has been overturned).


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 14 May , 2005 2:21 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Cerin: Now if the probationary period is really meant to be a stigma/penalty type of statement

I personally do not interpret it this way.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Impenitent
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 14 May , 2005 12:08 pm
Try to stay perky
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
 
Managed to get through the Admin removal draft ballot; this one will have to wait til tomorrow. Gotta go dispense chicken soup amongst ailing family members now.

Sorry.

_________________

[ img ]

"Believe me, every heart has its secret sorrows, which the world knows not;
and oftentimes we call a man cold when he is only sad." ~Robert C. Savage


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 14 May , 2005 3:25 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
People,

Stupid me. I forgot that we also have hearings to reverse a ban, which needs to have its existence established in this paragraph.

I've added the following text to the ballot above:

Hearings to reverse a ban do not require a vote of the membership. Conditions under which these hearings may take place are given in Article 3, ¶5.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 14 May , 2005 4:18 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
I would be fine with one or two months for probation. For someone who is cleaning up their act, it's enough time to show it, and for someone who is self-destructing, it's more than enough time to finish the job.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 3  [ 52 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page 1 2 3 »
Jump to: