board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Admin Powers and Bannings

Post Reply   Page 2 of 5  [ 92 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Author Message
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 16 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Well I think just having an 'outside' where posters could go, as a substitute for the whole mediation option, would work fine.

The posters who are committed to a member-moderated board would surely use it. The backup options - arbitration and ban hearings - are for situations involving people who just won't cooperate. We will get such people from time to time. For sure it will happen if the board is open to the public. If we remain on a registry-approval basis then we might never need to ban anyone, but ... much as I desire a syndo-anarchic utopia myself :) I know that anything approaching that can only evolve in a protected environment.

I would like the admins and/or members to have to power to demand an intervention (i.e. an arbitration) if necessary, and for that to be a process where the final decision is made by a subgroup of the members themselves, and the process is protected from nasty kinds of interference.

I'm going to edit the 'Outside' option into the first post as a an alternative to everything listed under mediation.

Jn

edit: I just finished inserting the alternative into the first post, and I quite like the idea of having a free-form place where people can go on their own instead of needing a formal request and a facilitator to do that. It really does simplify about 90% of the problems we might anticipate.

There's so few people participating in this thread, maybe if we're all strongly in favor of having an 'outside' instead of formal process for mediation, I can eliminate that whole section on mediation ... and then more posters will bother to read it! :)

It's also true that the first post is long and complicated because many of the same details are repeated in every section ... so, the fewer sections, the easier it will be to read.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Leoba
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 17 Feb , 2005 8:34 am
Troubadour of Ithilien
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3539
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 11:04 am
Location: Bree, Buckinghamshire
 
Quote:
There's so few people participating in this thread
I have been reading religiously. But, like MariaHobbit, I found my brain turning to mush as it tried to process and I shamefully haven't taken the time out to think it through thoroughly. I do find myself pretty much in agreement with what Jny says though - so either she is right or I am easily led. :):mrgreen:

_________________

Also found on Facebook - hunt me down via the MetaTORC group.

[ img ]

I just adore the concept of washing Dirty Horseboys!


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 17 Feb , 2005 4:45 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Leoba wrote:
Quote:
I do find myself pretty much in agreement with what Jny says though - so either she is right or I am easily led. :):mrgreen:
Like we have to choose? :devil:

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Mummpizz
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 17 Feb , 2005 5:49 pm
Gloriosus
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Wed 08 Dec , 2004 11:10 am
Location: history (repeats itself)
Contact: Website
 
Jnyusa wrote:
Well I think just having an 'outside' where posters could go, as a substitute for the whole mediation option, would work fine.

...

If we remain on a registry-approval basis then we might never need to ban anyone, but ... much as I desire a syndo-anarchic utopia myself :) I know that anything approaching that can only evolve in a protected environment.
Good.

I have nothing against a bit of protection ... a mentor, a snotty welcoming committee evaluating each unmentored newbie, something like a questionaire - as if being 13 (18?) years old would be everything necessary to be allowed to quack around everywhere like Donald Duck.

_________________

– – –


Top
Profile Quote
Nin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 17 Feb , 2005 10:39 pm
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
Jny - I'm sorry, I was just too tired over the last days.

My brain is not working any more.

_________________

Nichts Schöneres unter der Sonne als unter der Sonne zu sein.
(Ingeborg Bachmann)


Top
Profile Quote
MariaHobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 18 Feb , 2005 4:26 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8039
Joined: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 2:39 pm
Location: MO
 
OK, I gritted my teeth and went back and doggedly read the whole procedure in those posts I was complaining about- and whenever I didn't get something I re-read that sentance over and over until I understood it.

NOW I'm impressed! Comprehension is required for full appreciation!

I like the idea of an "Outside" forum where posters can take their arguments under their own initiative, or at others prodding. There have been a lot of times lately in Manwe where I wish there was such a place. There are two posters there that CONSTANTLY get into arguments that sidetrack the most interesting threads into one-on-one slugfests that are only tangentially related to the issue at hand. They aren't even breaking TOS, but it's so obviously personal animosity that's the issue that its not fun to read. I would love to be able to just tell them to "Take it outside, would you guys?" :neutral:

That would work! One person would say, "OK", start a dispute thread in an "outside" forum, put a link to the new thread in the old thread and then the old thread can continue on. And then those who want to enjoy the fight can step outside to the new thread with them and see the outcome, and the more peaceloving of us can continue with the discussion.

It could be really amusing, actually: to see fight threads branching off every few posts or so on the more hotly disputed topics! :devil:

About the other stuff, why limit the jury pool to volunteers only? Why not have everyone on a list, and those that don't feel like participating when their number comes up can beg off. That way, at least they'll know they were needed, rather than forgetting all about their "civic duty". I'm not for forcing people to participate-- but am not adverse to getting an email saying "It's your turn to serve, can you do it?"


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 18 Feb , 2005 4:47 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
maria--

Yes! Make people opt out instead of opting in. Attach no onus to saying no, but kudos for saying yes.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 18 Feb , 2005 9:05 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Ok - I'm going to whittle down the first post now, and add a rota option for the selection of facilitators/arbitrators/jury.

Maria - thanks for doing that! I didn't mean to force you to re-read the whole thing ... just wanted a bit of additional input before erasing the whole section on mediation.

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: Sat 19 Feb , 2005 12:37 am
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Hmmmh, I don't know whether I've read the curtailed version of the first post now, or the original version.

Sorry for not reading this sooner, but it's only been up for four days - I think one of the main problems of this board (for me) is that we seem to be in a perpetual hurry. I know that time on the Internet is different from real time somehow, but I really think there's no need to get nervous when such a difficult discussion hasn't made all that much progress after only four days.

Anyway, apart from that, the first post mainly had me nodding in agreement.
(LOL, gone back to the first post now for reference, and I think I still saw the original version, but now it's changed - makes responding a bit more difficult.)

I like the idea of the "outside" forum, where members who have a conflict could go to settle that conflict.
However, I think, in case of a real conflict, a mediator, as had been suggested first, would be a good idea.
Someone all members involved in the conflict would agree upon and who would guide the discussion and prevent flaming or who would try to explain the views of the opponents to the other parties.
(This may sound silly, but I think in case of a real conflict, hearing what my opponent has to say from my opponent is likely to sound not very palatable, so it would be helpful if there were a mediator who says: I think what x meant was... - you know what I mean?)

So, in short, I'd say: yes to having the quarrelling parties try to solve the problem on their own, but offer the help of a mediator, if desired.

Also, with taking things to email or asking members to solve a conflict among themselves: if I have a conflict with someone, contacting them in private would be the hardest thing to do, really. So much more so, I would imagine, if the conflict would be between a member who is fairly new and doesn't know the person they are supposed to contact very well.
So, I think a mediator in such a case would be very helpful.

Apart from this (before it gets too complicated):
- I like the idea that public conflict resolution will urge members to solve a problem quietly - I think this can really work.
- I like the provisions and caveats in case of discussing a banning

There'd be a few things to say on the arbitration process, but I'm leaving that for later.

_________________

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: Sat 19 Feb , 2005 2:20 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
TH - I'll tell you what changed.

1. The whole section on mediation was removed and replaced by the green paragaph creating an 'outside.' The details of mediation were much like the details of arbitration (which are still up there) except that everything was voluntary and a bit more informal.

2. People have been using the word 'jury' a lot, so I changed the word 'arbitator' to 'juror' but left it in quotes everywhere.

3. I took out the blue rationale wherever it was a duplicate of something already written.

The removal of everything about mediation might be too extreme. There was a provision in there that members could ask for a facilitator. Let me put that back in, as I think that would addess most of your suggestion.

Yes, one more thing (I had to look at your post again) ... with the creation of an 'outside' than anyone can use without gaining prior permission from the administrators, it's not necessary for the administrator whether the dispute should be resolved by email among the members. So the last comment you made is already part of the new suggested system - people don't have to do it by email, they can just go 'outside' and the admins don't have to be burdened with responsibility for that.

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: Sat 19 Feb , 2005 10:54 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Ok - thanks, Jny!

I had noticed that the whole stuff about mediators was gone, that's why I made it the main part of my post to explain what I think is good about having that, from what I remembered having been said about them in the first version. :)

So, yes, with some kind of facilitator/mediator that people could ask for, it is much better, thanks. :)
(I try to work things out from imagining actual cases and it's just that in the kinds of disputes I could imagine ending myself up in, I think I'd need someone to work as a neutral middle-man/-woman, i.e. mediator ;) )

_________________

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
Impenitent
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 19 Feb , 2005 11:25 pm
Try to stay perky
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
 
IMO the amended process as suggested in the first post is preferable to the first - the less intervention the better. If we are overt about expecting people to act as adults of good will and provide easy to access structures and guidelines for conflict resolution, people will take on that responsibility. Intervention (even 'soft' intervention in the form of informal mediation) should be a last resort - and that is what we have in the current first post.

_________________

[ 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
Berhael
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 1:45 pm
Milk and kisses
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4417
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 11:03 am
Location: lost in translation
 
Jny, awesome.

I'm still reading but I wanted to nod enthusiastically and show my appreciation for the hard work you're doing. I'll be back later with comments. :)


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 5:04 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Thanks, TH, Imp and Ber.

So ... how do you guys feel about the 'arbitration process' as it stands now? Does it seem complete enough for everyone to know what to do without going into a panic?

Anyone have alternate suggestions for selection of a 'jury' in a ban hearing (which I hope we'll never need)?

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: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 6:40 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
I'll just quote the process of arbitration as you explained it, Jny, and add comments and thoughts to each aspect. :)

I think it's pretty complete, there are a few things I have trouble understanding at first glance, but nothing important, so, yes, I guess it's clear and people don't have to panic. :D
Quote:
• A panel of three 'jurors' will be chosen by the posters who are involved in the dispute. [this # was suggested several times; preferred that posters get to pick their own jury]
Does that mean both conflicting parties have to agree on all three "jurors"? It should, but it might be difficult, I think.
Quote:
• If one of the parties to the dispute is a current Administrator, then none of the jurors may be current administrators.
No objection, but I don't rightly understand the reason for that rule. If admins don't have any power, and aren't a group apart, as they are on TORC, for example, why can't they be on the jury in such a case?
Quote:
• Once a panel of three 'jurors' has been selected, each poster involved in the dispute will present their position in a written email which all three jurors will read and then post simultaneously in a thread created for that purpose. [the rationale is to avoid a situation where one poster has unequal opportunity to respond to what the other poster(s) intially said]
I'm afraid I don't understand the rationale mentioned here - maybe it could be explained some other way?
As to "each poster writes one e-mail" - I think there's a problem if one poster is just better at bringing their point across than another one.
I don't have a better solution either, I just think that's a possible problem that should be mentioned.
Quote:
• No one other than the posters and jurors may post in that thread unless requested by a juror to do so. Poachers will be deleted by the administrator overseeing the thread.[to avoid flamers and spammers in a process that should be taken seriously]
Good :)
Quote:
• The posters and jurors may discuss the situation among themselves after the initial positions have been posted. In some cases, the jurors may call upon formal witnesses to post in the thread, and the posters may ask the jurors to call witnesses on their behalf. [so that relevant info can be obtained]

• Members with constructive suggestions who have not been called upon to post should email the 'jurors'. [so that good ideas can be heard]
Excellent, I think - this might be the solution to the problem I just mentioned, of someone not being able to present their case so well in a single e-mail. :)
Quote:
• The 'jurors' will confer with one another, and may do their final deliberations by email rather than in public. [desire to give some discretion over privacy to the ‘jury’] The discussion and conference will not last longer than ten days.
Hmmh - I agree that jurors should have the possibility to confer in private, but I think that when the decision is published it should be said whether there were private conferences, and then explained (as a summary) what went on in them.
Not entirely sure if that's at all feasible, it's just that on the one hand I understand the need for private conference, but on the other hand I'm a little uncomfortable about that.
Quote:
• When a decision is reached, the 'jurors' will email their decision to the parties involved in the dispute, and then post their decision in the thread twenty-four hours later. [members involved should not have to read it in the newspaper first] Each 'juror' may also express their own opinion in the matter, but the decision of the majority will hold. Posters will accept the decision of the 'jurors'.

• The thread will be locked, and may be deleted at the request of those involved.
Good :)

Still, this is all very theoretical. At the moment I can't imagine what kind of conflict we are talking about, and what kind of resolution and decision we are discussing here. I think that's important, because before we decide on a process that posters agree to abide by, we should have an idea of what consequences, for example, we are talking about here.

_________________

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
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 7:03 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Re the jury for a hearing on a ban:
Quote:
• The jury will be composed of three members: one member selected by the poster to serve as his/her advocate, one member selected by the administrators, and one member voted on by the board at large from among those who volunteer. [voting on who the ‘jury’ would be was suggested several times. There may be a more efficient way to do this]

• No member of the jury may be a current administrator.[strong desire expressed that admins would not have the only say in a banning]
It's not that I have big objections here, so, if there were strong views expressed on that I guess it's ok, but personally, I wouldn't mind a current admin being member of the jury so much as one jury member being chosen by the admins.

If the admin don't have any power, why should one not be one of three in a jury?
And if they don't have any power, why should it be up to them to determine one of the members of the jury?
I don't rightly understand the reasoning behind this, 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
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 7:16 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
TH, the admins DO have power, temporarily. However one defines it, they are able to do things that non-admins cannot. I think its a good idea not to give someone who is exercising temporary power MORE temporary power.


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 7:28 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Voronwe, I thought they didn't have any decision-making power - or do they?
They just press buttons, according to the rules and decisions taken by the board.
I wouldn't call that power, even though they can do things other posters can not.

Or maybe we haven't discussed that yet?

For example, what if a thread goes off track (ok, osgiliates ;) ) because of an argument of some of the posters in it? Would an admin be allowed to lock the thread in order to avoid further escalation?
That would be an instance of actual power. And, actually, I don't remember whether we've agreed they should have that power or not. :scratch

_________________

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
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 8:05 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
They certainly have that power, as we saw with their little game the other day. Whether or how they are supposed to use it, I am not the right person to answer. But they definitely have power. Anyone who says they don't is misspeaking.


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 8:21 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
We have that power, but, personal opinion, I don't think a thread should be able to be locked unless the members of the board agree to it.

The only exceptions to this are invites threads, which are locked and deleted when the member is approved, and anything else that is deemed an exception by the members of the board.

The threads that were locked in the game the other day, did not stay locked, nor would they have. Admins may have the ability to do it, but it is the members of the board that give them the power to do it.

I personally think that any admin here who (seriously) locks a thread as if they were some sort of mod, could be de-admined by the members of the board, if they see fit.

Admins click buttons and move things. This is a self-moderating board, and when it comes to posters being modded, I think everyone should have the same power. It might have to change when we open up, but right now, we have a pretty good system.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 2 of 5  [ 92 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Jump to: