board77

Alandriel,

Thanks! Cerin has volunteered, too, and I'm sending her the explanation of how to do it by email. Your counting will also help - I feel much more comfortable having back-ups.

Jn

Prim,

Well stated.

V the vonderful wrote:

Let's say you say something that really pisses me off, but you don't realize it, and go off on your merry way. I personally would try to resolve it via PM or email, and it would be my responsibility to let you know that I was pissed. In my mind, it is assumed that members have the option to do this, but do you think that it needs to be spelled out that they can do so?

My strongly urged suggestion on all issues of self-moderation is to spell out the bare minimum as guidelines and then allow adults to act in an adult way in line with the culture of the board.

We can't cover all contingencies and we should not attempt to cover all contingencies.

Let's keep it as simple as possible. Let's allow some freedom and discretion in interpretation of our guidelines.

What Impy said. (May I call you Impy?) And w00t.

IS, . And that is a stunning photograph.

Prim, impy is fine. I aim to act impenitently as impishly as possible.

It's actually a marvelous name on so many levels.

(But I picked Prim, and Prim I am. )

Impy is a goddess, and nobody better say different

There is also the thing we have had here since inception, that if somebody is anoying you in anyway, say so. All members of the board have that right (or should have I guess), as long as they say whatever is on their mind in a clear and plesant manner.

It is something I would like to see more of. Can we put it is the constitution? I know it is blatent right, but I also know that like on all message boards there are folks here who do not want to say things as it means going against the big guns. I do feel that somebody who has been here a week has as much right to say it as old dogs like me.

PS, I am Din, not sure why slang for discordant noise would be associated with poor little me

People,

I've updated the third post of this thread for the current discussion on Hearings.

I probably won't be around much today because of teaching but I will try to go through this whole thread and copy into the third post other suggestions that have been made on this topic.

Jn

I have a question about the BikeRacks, which I would have asked earlier, had a Bank Holiday weekend (yes, another one) not intervened. I hope I’m not repeating anything and I’m sorry if this drags us backwards a step.

We have the proposed statement: “If members are having difficulty resolving their dispute they may ask for a mediator. There should be no more than one mediator, agreed upon by the discussants, and chosen from among those jury pool members who have indicated their willingness to serve in this capacity. Service as a mediator in a particular dispute is voluntary.”

What would happen in the event that both/all parties cannot agree on either the need for a mediator or the identity of the mediator? Do the admin have the discretion to impose a mediator of their choosing on the parties in dispute?

Leoba, good question. My understanding is that the admins could not do that. That the parties would need to agree on both doing the mediation and on the identity of the mediator.

I think the philosophy is that it's better to let the occasional problem go unresolved than to give anyone the power of imposing their idea of a solution on members.

"Unsolvable" conflicts do solve themselves eventually, in my experience. People calm down, usually. Sometimes someone leaves, which is unfortunate. But a forced mediation would be unlikely to be able to prevent that. People don't tend to be happy with solutions imposed from outside.

Friends, I’ve been trying to take Article 3 (admins), and the current Jury Room Stickies, and what’s been said in this thread about all aspects of juries, and try to impose some structure upon the discussion. I am realizing just how complicated the discussion is. The final procedure will not be complicated, I think, but taking the options into account will be.

I come at this from the following approach: the article has to say what happens in a hearing, so it needs to go, “beginning, middle, end” ... how the hearing is convened, how it is conducted, what kind of decision does the jury make.

The current stickies are already arranged that way, so let me make a suggestion. Starting with the stickies, I’ve pulled out the key points that exist in the current procedure, and I’ve marked in BLUE the ones that I think will definitely have to be eliminated because we are considering a different procedure. The rationale for removing it, and what it will likely be replaced by (based on current discussion) is shown in INDIGO. I’ve marked in RED the things that will probably remain in principle but change in detail. New Suggestions coming in are in GREEN

Could we begin by doing the following:
1. Indicate any additional things you think should be eliminated and re-thought.
2. Indicate your agreement if you agree that something should remain in principle.
3. Indicate additional details that must be changed.

This way we will have at least a basic “order of events” to begin with, and we will be able to see current suggestions in the context of the procedure.

Arbitrations - to be retitled
Suggested:
“Hearings on Violation of by-laws”
"Hearings on Community Disruptions"

• Three jurors will be selected by the admin with the following guidelines: (a) every effort will be made to select jurors proposed by the posters, but (b) if more than three posters are involved in the dispute the admin must have discretion to choose three jurors from among those proposed Out because both the number of jurors and the selection process will be changed. Must be replaced by: (1) who convenes the hearing and how (2) number of jurors (3) jury selection
Suggested:
- 2 admins convene a hearing; 3 admins convene a hearing
- jurors are selected in order of entry to pool
- nine jurors picked from top of list and 2 or 3 can be rejected
- an alternate juror attends, votes if a regular leaves

• jury duty is voluntary (voted on by prior committee and approved before that by consensus of the members)

• If one of the posters involved in the dispute is a current admin, then none of the jurors should be current admins

•The jury list will be presented for approval to the posters involved in the arbitration, but no more than three days should be spent agreeing upon a jury and the admin will have final say if agreement cannot be reached any other way. Will be replaced by jury selection process, but whether the ‘accused’ has right to select or merely reject jurors, there should still be a time limit on the process

• The full name and email address of all three jurors will be sent to all posters involved in the arbitration and placed in the first post of the thread so that jurors can be contacted by potential witnesses (not needed - those on the board can PM)

• At this point, the admin may absent his/herself from the arbitration and allow the jurors to take over. Admins will remain alert to the need to change permissions or delete posts that do not belong. We must also decide who will oversee procedure.
Suggested:
- the mayor
- an admin appointed to do so
- create a new office for this

• Posters may then discuss their position with one another or with the jurors, and jurors may ask questions

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

• If you are called as a witness, your participation is voluntary, but please answer the request promptly

• the jurors may call an end to the arbitration, confer among themselves, and reach a decision as to a fair and appropriate course of action. Need here an announcement and call for final arguments
Suggested:
- 24 hours notice

• Jurors should strive to reach a decision within ten days We should impose a time limit on deliberations

• A course of action agreed upon by two of the three jurors should be taken as a Decision. We must specify how many needed for a decision
Suggested:
- strongly leaning toward six jurors, therefore 4/6 = decision

• When the jurors have reached a decision, they will email their decision to each poster involved in the arbitration (but not to the witnesses) and then post their decision in the thread twenty-four hours later. A note on the logic of this - it is so that the accused hears the answer first, and in person, rather than reading it on the board
Suggested:
- 24 hour notification process should apply throughout
- members subject to hearing should get everything by email to ensure reciept

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

• Posters who refuse to abide by an Arbitration Decision may be considered for banning

• Arbitration threads are deleted when the arbitration is concluded
Suggested:
- Same procedure as for bike racks. Consistency throughout. Threads deleted at request of member

• elements of the discussion or the decision may be preserved in the Archive with the names of the posters deleted

Hearings on Bans - differ only in the following respects

• The administrator will notify the poster that a ban has been proposed A note on the logic of this - originally arbitrations were initiated by the members, so the members involved knew they were taking place. That is not necessarily the case with a ban
Suggested:
-24 hour notification for all hearing - email, wait 24 hours, and then the thread opens

• jury selection is specified for a ban, but will probably be changed

• A Recommendation by a Jury to Ban a Member is not final. It is followed by a vote of the membership (please read the sticky for details)

Jnyusa,

Thank you. I'll review it this evening.

I will try to look at this tonight as well when my mind is less tied up in work.

I do have a query though on;

Quote:

Arbitration threads are deleted when the arbitration is concluded Since the opposite was decided for the bike racks, this should go to a vote as well.

Is it possible to add to this that if the members involved in the discussion/arbitration want to have the thread deleted, it can be.

Ok, I lied, I have two queries....

Just thinking long term and potentially the amount that could build up, and also if the discussion had crossed into territory that the members involved were not happy about and they feel they would prefer it to be deleted even if all names were removed, could they ask for it to go?

Just wouldn't want something laying round in the archives to spark something else off in the future, knowing what human nature can be like.


Also, and I have no idea if this will throw a spanner in the works, but what do we do if the general membership really don't agree with a decision made by the jury? Just suposeing a lesser known member is flamed by a very popular type. The jury decide in favor of the popular member in a wave of blatant favoritism which is totally unfair, and the poor lesser known member gets suspended, or banned or just told to shut up and stop whinging.
What is in place in case this happens?

I guess I am asking about appeals as well. I really don't sugest we go down the Micheal Jackson or Birmingham4 route, but we are a small community and these sort of issues build resentment.

Sorry to ask this at this point but my head is very fuzzy today and I really can't remember if this has been covered.

Din: Is it possible to add to this that if the members involved in the discussion/arbitration want to have the thread deleted, it can be.

Yes, that was the choice nearly everyone voted for in the Bike Racks. Maybe if enough people weigh in we won't even have to vote on different procedures, we can just change it to that and vote the whole text.

Just wouldn't want something laying round in the archives to spark something else off in the future

This was exactly the logic of the members when I drew up the stickies the first time. It's been pretty interesting to me, really, how this committee has wanted to do so many things the opposite way.

I guess I am asking about appeals as well.

Yeah, we'll get to that. I thought we'd start first with what we got and decide how much of it to keep.

Jn

Jnyusa wrote:

1. Indicate any additional things you think should be eliminated and re-thought.
2. Indicate your agreement if you agree that something should remain in principle.
3. Indicate additional details that must be changed.

This looks good to me. I can't think of anything additional that needs to be addressed, and I'm in agreement with what you've set out.

Thanks, Jn!

Finally caught up reading.

I don't think I have anything great to add, but I thought maybe we should get the ball rolling again.

Jnyusa wrote:

Arbitrations - to be retitled, possibly “Hearings on Violation of by-laws”
• Three jurors will be selected by the admin with the following guidelines: (a) every effort will be made to select jurors proposed by the posters, but (b) if more than three posters are involved in the dispute the admin must have discretion to choose three jurors from among those proposed Out because both the number of jurors and the selection process will be changed. Must be replaced by: (1) who convenes the hearing and how (2) number of jurors (3) jury selection

As said previously, I think, I'm still quite happy with the old system in principle, even if it was meant to include personal dispute, too.
My main reason is that if a hearing on a ban has six people on a jury, then a smaller number for a normal hearing would be enough.
I also like the selection we had: name three people and the admin will pick one of them.
That way we don't need to bother about presenting candidates to the person in question and having them rejected.

Of course it's a change that now we don't have two people against each other anymore, but one or more person, of whom the jury will have to decide whether they broke a board rule.
So, I think Jny said some time ago that we don't need an "attorney at law" type of jury-member anymore. And if we don't have one jury member for the accused, one for the board, and one neutral anymore the system of "name three, admins pick one" doesn't work anymore either.
Hmmh - how about something similar then?
In case of four members maybe: name four and the admins pick two, and add two from the pool at their own discretion.

Well, just thinking out loud here, basically, not very structured I'm afraid.
However, I'm not principally opposed to six jury-members and a different way to find them either, if that's what the others prefer.

Quote:

• If one of the posters involved in the dispute is a current admin, then none of the jurors should be current admins

The phrasing of this one still sounds like it's about personal disputes, I think.

Quote:

•The jury list will be presented for approval to the posters involved in the arbitration, but no more than three days should be spent agreeing upon a jury and the admin will have final say if agreement cannot be reached any other way. Will be replaced by jury selection process, but whether the ‘accused’ has right to select or merely reject jurors, there should still be a time limit on the process

A time limit to the whole process or only to the time the jury can take to come to a conclusion?
I think a time limit to the whole process might be too much regulation.
Maybe better just time limits for people to respond to questions, etc.

Quote:

• At this point, the admin may absent his/herself from the arbitration and allow the jurors to take over. The admin will continue to monitor the thread to remove any posts that do not belong and respond to requests that posts be removed if necessary. We must decide who will oversee procedure. If it is the mayor (who has no admin powers) then an admin must also continue to monitor the thread for poachers.

I'm for the admin doing this - it's not a decision-making role, just checking on orderly procedure and keeping order if necessary.

No comments on the rest, because it's either fine, or if there were things to decide, it didn't yet fit in this post.

TH: referring to "• If one of the posters involved in the dispute is a current admin, then none of the jurors should be current admins" you said:

The phrasing of this one still sounds like it's about personal disputes, I think.

You're right. I''m going to put the first part in blue. Personally, I would like to say 'no admins on juries' for division of labor if nothing else.

A time limit to the whole process or only to the time the jury can take to come to a conclusion?

Neither. They have three days to pick a jury and begin the rest of the the process.

I'm for the admin doing this - it's not a decision-making role, just checking on orderly procedure and keeping order if necessary.

TH - I'd like to keep this simple, too, and having the admins do it seems the easiest way. The only problem with that is that it requires every admin to really learn the Charter, and their terms are so short this does not seem efficient.

The mayor is an obvious candidate for "procedure watcher." Voronwe is probably right that the admin position is a lot more time consuming than the mayor. And the mayor will have more time to learn the charter, and will have to do it anyway for proper record keeping.

In terms of actual procedure, I'm wondering if we can build on something we did in Article 3:

We required two admins to agree that a warning was needed before a warning could be given to another admin.

I think the idea of two admins is a good one for deciding that a hearing should be convened, i.e. when a violation of by-laws or bannable offense is brought to the attention of the admins, two must agree to convene a hearing.

If the Mayor is procedure-watcher, the mayor plus two admins other than those who convened the hearing could be the appeals panel. As Idylle mentioned, procedural questions are the grounds for appeal in our legal system, and I think that appeals should be limited to this in our board system too.

Jn

I don't care for the idea of the admins picking the jury, or part of the jury. I like the shuffling idea better; maybe shuffle in the next nine members of the jury pool, with the subject of the hearing choosing three to exclude?

Speaking of the jury pool, could we have the jury pool include all members over a certain age and time on the board, and then when they were notified that they were being shuffled in, they would have the option to decline? This might give us a larger pool than having it based on pro-active volunteering.

I liked the idea of having a separate overseer for the hearings (rather than have an admin in charge). Even if hearings are rare, it seems to me it would be a very intense and absorbing duty for the duration of the hearing, and as Jn said, would require a greater level of familiarity with the charter. Yet it doesn't seem like a similar type of job to the Mayor's record-keeping duties, so a person well-suited to one might not be to the other.

Having two admins decide on convening a hearing doesn't seem like enough to me. I'm not familiar with the admin forum, but is it difficult to get all the admins' input on something? Would it be problematic for all the admins to confer, with the majority opinion determining if a hearing is warranted?

Cerin wrote:

I don't care for the idea of the admins picking the jury, or part of the jury. I like the shuffling idea better; maybe shuffle in the next nine members of the jury pool, with the subject of the hearing choosing three to exclude?

The more I think on it, the more I agree with this. Admins picking the jury may display unconscious bias - the same people may be chosen over and over - or from another perspective, the same people may be overlooked over and over. And V the Vonderful has already spoken clearly on the undesirability of the subject selecting jury members who may be advocates rather than impartial sifters of the facts.

Quote:

Speaking of the jury pool, could we have the jury pool include all members over a certain age and time on the board, and then when they were notified that they were being shuffled in, they would have the option to decline? This might give us a larger pool than having it based on pro-active volunteering.

Again, I agree with this. Not only a larger pool, but will offer ALL an opportunity to engage in the process. The offer is made to the next person on the list (I assume maintained in chronological order of membership? though the details of that can be worked out if this proposal is accepted) and if it is declined nothing is lost.

Quote:

I liked the idea of having a separate overseer for the hearings (rather than have an admin in charge). Even if hearings are rare, it seems to me it would be a very intense and absorbing duty for the duration of the hearing, and as Jn said, would require a greater level of familiarity with the charter. Yet it doesn't seem like a similar type of job to the Mayor's record-keeping duties, so a person well-suited to one might not be to the other.

I don't think the record-keeper should be the one to oversee due process in hearings. I think that particular set of skills is quite different and I'd be happier to have either a small pool of volunteers who dedicate themselves to memorizing the rules and then ensuring (at a safe, stand-off, non-participatory distance) that due process is followed (and they can decide between themselves who is going to oversee which hearing, because after all, there would be no decision making authority vested in them); or alternatively, we vote in an assistant mayor or grand poobah or whatever whose job it is to oversee due process IN ALL THINGS! ie use of bike racks as well as hearings, and any other procedural issue. I guess it would have to be someone with a clear eye for the rules.

Quote:

Having two admins decide on convening a hearing doesn't seem like enough to me. I'm not familiar with the admin forum, but is it difficult to get all the admins' input on something? Would it be problematic for all the admins to confer, with the majority opinion determining if a hearing is warranted?

I agree again. I think it would be straightforward to take a quick vote amongst the admins to see if the consensus is for a particular hearing or not.