MAJOR EDIT for those reading this thread for the first time.
This is the former "Resolution of Disputes Among Members" thread. Decisions regarding disputes were edited into this first post as they were made and you can read them below. The section of our board reserved for dispute resolution is now called "Outside" and you can see it from the index. How to use each of the three Outside Forums is explained in a sticky at the top of each forum. Discussion about the content of those stickies is now taking place HERE
This thread has moved on to a discussion of the powers of administrators and the nature of bannable offenses. The title has been changed accordingly. The new discussion begins on page 4 (if you have 10 posts to a page). Look for the red notice in a post by Jnyusa. The discussion starts approximately at the top of that page.
This edit is being done to help clean-up in the Business Forum.
Thank you.
*********** original post begins here
Friends, this is one of the more complicated issues that we have to resolve, so I will ask for your patience in reading through this. I decided to forge ahead with this particular issue because I think that the invite process will provoke less controversy if we know how we intend to deal with potential problems that might be raised by the influx of new and diverse members. I work on the principle that anything I know how to handle isn’t going to happen.
The model I have presented below is not “done.†I am putting it up for discussion. It is based on similar models used for organizing communities in newly emerging democracies. I feel that the basic structure would suit us. But the fine points must be tailored to our needs and that requires your participation.
My assumption is that there would be some things for which an administrator could ban a member or cancel their registration without consulting with the members, e.g. spamming the board with porn links overnight ... things like this. We have yet to decide exactly what those things are. Other potential bannings might arise from an inability to resolve long-standing disputes, and my sense of previous discussion is that people don’t want such bannings to take place without some sort of fair and impartial hearing. Where bannings are concerned, the model outlined below only accounts for those bannings where a hearing would be appropriate, and we have not yet defined what those circumstances would be. But the structure can be decided independent of the kind of case that falls into each category. So I will beg you to proceed with this discussion, and at some point in the near future I will put up an additional thread where we can discuss exactly what constitutes “an offence†within our system.
This model takes into account (wherever possible) the features that members have expressed a desire for. I have put those rationales in blue. Whatever is in blue is not part of the model per se but shows what feature of our desired justice system that particular provision of the model serves.
Undecided terminology, or open-ended questions that do not affect the working of the model, are put in red.
As discussion proceeds, modifications and suggestions offered will be added in green.
Feb 18 edit: significant changes have been suggested and discusssed and these have now been incorporated into what you see below.
PROCESS FOR RESOLVING DISPUTES AMONG MEMBERS:
• Members who become involved in a dispute or any personal discussion that is taking a thread off-topic can 'take it outside' to the forum created for that purpose. In that forum they can start a thread for their off-topic discussion or dispute. They may request the assistance of a facilitator from the pool of members available for this. An admin will lock the thread on request when the discussion is finished.
• For more serious disputes where certain member(s) are uncooperative, refusing to 'take it outside,' and disrupting the board, any affected member or admin may ask the admins for a third-party intervention.
• Members of B77 may volunteer to serve as - ‘something like jury duty’ - and be called upon to help as facilitators or with the resolution of disputes when member-intervention is required. Their participation at any given time or in any given dispute will be voluntary. Alternative: all members meeting certain criteria of join date and post count would be eligible for 'jury duty' but could decline when asked to serve. Difference between a rota and a voluntary pool is that the member would have to opt out instead of opting in.[keep it voluntary no matter how the 'jury' is chosen]
• Two kinds of dispute resolution would be employed: Arbitration and Hearings on a Ban. The process for each is described below. (Hearings on a ban only take place when the offense is bannable, and we have not yet discussed what those offenses are.)
• When an administrator receives a request for assistance with a dispute, they should contact all parties to the dispute, tell them that assistance has been requested, and set up a thread for that purpose in the 'jury forum,' or 'outside,' however this forum gets named.
• The membership at large may view the proceedings. [non-secrecy of proceedings] An administrator will start the thread, facilitate the communication process that results in the selection of a jury, and will oversee the thread to ensure the process is not disrupted but will not otherwise intervene.
Arbitration:
• 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]
• If one of the parties to the dispute is a current Administrator, then none of the jurors may be current administrators.
• 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]
• 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]
• 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]
• 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.
• 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.
Hearings on a Ban: [many details of process are same as above and the rationales are not repeated here]
• If a member has committed a bannable offense that entitles them to a Hearing, any current administrator may propose the ban and convene a jury for a Hearing.
• 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]
• The vote on the third member of the panel will be held for eight days inclusive] [suggestions for a better way?]
• The reason for the banning will be posted by an administrator in a thread for that purpose.
• The poster will then post his/her defense.
• The 'jury' will confer with one another, and may do this by email rather than in public. The conference will not last longer than ten days.
• No one other than the jury and the 'accused' poster may post in that thread. Poachers will be deleted by the administrator overseeing the thread.
• In some cases, the jury may call upon formal witnesses to post in the thread, and the poster may ask the 'jury' to call witnesses on his/her behalf.
• Members with opinions or constructive suggestions who have not been called upon to post may email them to the 'jury'.
• When a decision is reached, the jurors will email their decision to the poster, and then post their decision in the thread twenty-four hours later.'Each juror may also express their own opinion in the matter, but the decision of the majority will be considered the recommendation of the jury.
• 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. A vote will be held for ten days. [this is governance by objection. Those who feel strongly that a wrong decision has been made have a structured opportunity to express their opposition]
• If the vote of the membership at large is tied, the recommendation of the jury will hold.
• If a recommendation to ban is overturned by a vote of the membership, the poster will be on x-month probation. If new bannable offenses are committed during that period, a new jury with three different members will be convened according to the same terms as above, but this time the decision of the jury will be final.
• If the Hearing results in a recommendation not to ban the member, the thread will then be deleted. If the Hearing results in a recommedation to ban the member, and this recommendation is upheld by a vote of the membership, the thread will then be deleted. If the Hearing results in a recommendation to ban the member and this recommendation is overturned by a vote of the membership, the thread will be locked but will not be deleted until the probation period has expired. [deleting the thread creates a “clean slate.†Posters will not be put on lists, and their past offenses will not follow them around; New jury members may wish to have access to precedents, however, so we may want to keep some kind of archive]
Two solutions have been proposed to the archive problem: (1) that only the text would be saved with the posters' names removed; (2) the archive would only be accessible to people who are on the 'jury' at the time when they need it.
********
To summarize the concept, the model involves having a pool of members available for “jury duty†who may be called upon for one of two functions. The burden of judgment does not fall on the administrators. The procedure is open to the public, but participation takes place in a controlled fashion.
Jn