board77

I will step out of this particular point of discussion and the vote about this paragraph.

I've spent some energy trying to explain terms that someone else introduced. "Bench trial" means something very specific. "Plea-bargain" means something very specific. I'm far more interested in being precise in the discussion than promoting the outcome.

My opinion about the use of a "bench trial" or some perversion of it, is that it is unnecessary.

The only utility of it would be a as a rarely used expedient.

Secrecy and privacy both seem to contradict the chosen ethic of this Board, but then so does concentration of power in a single authority.


truehobbit,

Yes, most attempts at true democracy do fail. There might be something to learn from that, as well as other prior experience.

Jnyusa wrote:

Hobby, perhaps I have also misunderstood the point of all this, but TORN introduced this as an alterative to a public hearing. I thought immediately in terms of having the option to privacy, not in terms of speed.

If there were anyone here who agreed to an Admin imposing a penalty as long as the member didn't object, we would have built that into the Special Power of Admins. People do NOT agree to that.

...

If we introduced a shortened hearing version, it would have to be held in private and it would have to involve jury members in my opinion otherwise it would be (a) pointless (b) in violation of Article 3.

There has been considerable opposition voiced to (a) secrecy (b) reduced sentencing (c) using a jury instead of admins. I see absolutely no point to creating a second hearing exactly like the hearing we've already got except it is decided by several admins instead of several jurors. And in my opinion, we CANNOT do that. This committee is not empowered to overturn the article of the last committee after it has gone for ratification.

...

If you post something offensive, the first thing that's going to happen is an admin or another member is going to ask you to delete it or retract it. In 99% of the cases you will, and that will be the end of it.

Jn

(Somewhat abridged quote)

Jny, I agree to all these. I didn't really see the alternative process as either a hearing or private, that's why it seemed a plausible alternative. So, I guess, I got the ideas wrong, sorry.

LOL, I think in my very first post on the subject I said the procedure we had initially was fine - so I'm really not set on coming up with improvements, basically because, like you, I can hardly see those hearings happening at all.

Which is why examples would be really helpful, IMO. So, I thought of a case - this might also show where I haven't properly understood the whole thing, so I'd just like to have a little RP here.

Please note that this is not to push the point about having this option! I'm fine with having a simple hearing in all cases. I just want to exemplify how I've been thinking throughout this discussion that this was supposed to work - and to find out if others had very different ideas.

In effect, my imagined case just leads me back to our first ideas for a hearing, I think.

Ok, case study:
One fine morning, Alandriel goes to the RP forum to enter a new post for "The Seekers" - and she finds an incredibly obscene post, involving Elves and Hobbits and Pointy Hat Tricks, made by Voronwe (just because it's so extremely unlikely ).
She PMs Voronwe (because I don't think anyone would run to the admins straight away when the problem involves an old friend), asking what was wrong, but before there's an answer, the next morning there's another such post!
So, now she notifies an admin, pointing to the obscene posts and the unanswered PM.
The admin now has to convene a hearing (two offenses in the RP-forum, right?) and PMs Voronwe about the problem and the hearing.
V. replies, saying that he didn't know what got into him, but he'd been troubled with frustration lately and had been drinking too much, and would it be possible not to drag this out over all the board.
The admin asks if he could assure the board this wouldn't happen again, to which he replies he'd try but couldn't be sure.
The admin asks if he would agree to be indefinitely banned from the RP forum, and as long as such a thing didn't happen anywhere else, that would be the end of it.
V agrees, and the admin posts in the Jury Room that Alandriel had lodged a complaint about Voronwe, who had admitted to have been making reprehensible posts in RP and was therefore denied access to the forum for the time being.
After a while (did we vote for two weeks?) the thread is deleted and a note placed in the Archives saying that in a case of obscene posts an agreement of suspension of posting rights had been reached without a jury hearing.

So - no private deliberations or hidden hearings, really, only three PM exchanges between the "troublemaker" and an admin. Just a possibility for the defendent to avoid the procedure of a hearing.

Although, in fact, I think the case here imagined, has some similarities to the wilko-case, which also consisted only in asking "did you do this" and "can you promise it won't happen again", and the consequent ruling of the jury.
Therefore, for me, whether what I just pictured would happen in PM or on the board doesn't seem to make of a difference.
The case would only be difficult if the defendent denied the charges or refused to agree they had done something wrong - in which case a hearing would be unavoidable.
Which leads me back to saying the original system was fine (even if we change three jurors to six) - we should keep close to it!

Edit: IS - thanks for the clarification! I know the terms have precise meanings, and thanks for explaining them - it's just that apart from you and Voronwe, I doubt anyone knew them!
So, if you speak of a bench trial, that one word has a lot of connotations for you, and you use it accordingly - if you use the word to me, however, for ought it means to me you could just as well be speaking of Hhkwkklaolns (or one of the letter combinations you used) - and that is bound to lead to trouble! We need to restrict ourselves to words that have similar connotations for all of us!

Apart from that I quite agree with you (I think ) in your reasoning against the bench trial/bargain/thing.

It was also my impression that people were excited about the idea of members being able to avoid a public hearing, which is why I continued discussing it. I am happy to let the matter drop. I did not foresee all the complications it would entail.

truehobbit wrote:

I guess I've been saying this way too often now, but (sorry IS) I think all the confusion stems from using terms which are laden with meaning for some.

I so agree with this! I am going to make the effort not to do it anymore.

You've just given an admin the power to ban members.

Is that what you want?

If so, in my opinion, we have to wait until the membership ratifies a method for amending the charter, and then amend Article 3 giving the Admins the right to ban a member if the member agrees.

Jn

Jnyusa wrote:

You've just given an admin the power to ban members.

Yes, that's what I thought TORN's procedure entailed.

If the member agrees, there's no danger of abuse of power, though.

Quote:

Is that what you want?

I didn't say I want it! It's just the way I understood the procedure was supposed to work. And if a majority here would have agreed to that, then that would have been that. As I said, as far as I'm concerned, we don't need to change our original procedure at all.

I don't see that the "no-hearing" procedure would be much quicker than having a hearing. If the charge is not disputed, it would all be over within a very few days, most of that waiting periods specified in the charter. And we don't have to empower admins to ban people.

Jn, I don't think that should be necessary, or even desirable. Here is how I see how things should work, in a situation where someone admits guilt. Using Hobby's scenario, let's that I admit that I made the obscene posts, blaming it on frustration at the Giants losing their best player, their closer, and the their best starting pitcher in succession. The admin involved still should not be able to determine what my penalty should be. A jury should still be constituted, but they would not need to worry about deciding whether I did it, because I had already admitted it. So they would only decide what my penalty is.

There is no need, in my opinion for any specific language in the charter to cover this type of situation (which I think is fairly likely to happen in the rare instances where there are community disruptions). I am completely against, however, any option that allows one person in a position of power to decide a member's fate. That's completely contrary to what we have been aiming for heretofar.

Edit: sorry, I cross-posted with Prim and Voronwe and agree with both of you.

I don't think the majority here has the power to overturn an Article written by the last committee and ratified by the members.

The Article being ratified right now specifies when an admin may ban a member.

I know that this is part of what TORN suggested, but it seemed clear to me that this was the one part of his suggestion that we could not accept because it violates Article 3. For that reason I focused on the other part of his suggestion, namely: privacy/secrecy.

It seems to me that everyone else has rejected this. So what are we left with? A public hearing with fewer jurors? Why didn't we just vote to have 3 jurors to begin with?

Voronwe insisted on more than three jurors. So what now - one kind of hearing with 3 jurors and another kind of hearing with 6 jurors? That's crazy.

There's no substantive difference between the hearing we have now and the hearing TORN proposed if the admins have no power to ban and the hearing cannot be held in secret. The only difference would be the number of jurors.

If we wanted to accord the right to a secret hearing to member, that's different. That's a substantive change. But I've heard nothing but objections to that so far.

Jn

I say lets go with what we have and move on to the next thing.

Please.

Well, the next thing is to vote on this procedure, but we can't do that yet until we know whether the jurors have an independent person to refer to for advice about procedure.

That vote is tied, and I've sent emails to the three people who have not voted. I don't know what else to do but wait for them to show up.

Maybe somebody will send me an email for a change telling me when people are here and/or ready to move on, and I'll go play somewhere else.

Jn

Edit: Actually, this is a serious request. TORN might vote by absentee ballot, in which case I'll post his vote in the thread. But laureanna and Din will be voting in the thread. Would one of the admins, or any member, kindly send me an email when they have both voted.

Ok, glad that's cleared up, then!

Jnyusa wrote:

I know that this is part of what TORN suggested, but it seemed clear to me that this was the one part of his suggestion that we could not accept because it violates Article 3. For that reason I focused on the other part of his suggestion, namely: privacy/secrecy.

It seems to me that everyone else has rejected this. So what are we left with? A public hearing with fewer jurors? Why didn't we just vote to have 3 jurors to begin with?

Right, so I didn't get TORN's idea wrong, but it was not an option from the start. Makes sense (in a way).
I'm all against secrecy, too.

And I would have been happy with 3 jurors.

Voronwe wrote:

let's that I admit that I made the obscene posts, blaming it on frustration at the Giants losing their best player, their closer, and the their best starting pitcher in succession. The admin involved still should not be able to determine what my penalty should be. A jury should still be constituted, but they would not need to worry about deciding whether I did it, because I had already admitted it. So they would only decide what my penalty is.

I totally agree!
(And it would still be a shorter procedure than a full hearing, because there'd be no asking of witnesses etc - in short, as I said, very much like wilko's case. )

Hmmh, re the vote: normally we close a vote when it's time, don't we?
What would we do if a vote were tied even after everybody voted?

TH: please see post above.

There are seventeen committee members. We can't tie if everyone votes. Due to the pivotal nature of the vote on Loremaster, I am leaving it open until everyone votes.

And I would appreciate someone contacting me when that happens.

Jn

Don't worry, if they show up, we'll send them to the ballot!

(But we didn't pick an odd number on purpose - that's just a coincidence, isn't it? What if there were an even number of committee members?
- But that's just a rhetorical question, just idle curiosity - please don't bother with it! )

Quote:

Well, the next thing is to vote on this procedure, but we can't do that yet until we know whether the jurors have an independent person to refer to for advice about procedure.

I'll further muddy the waters (sorry Jn ) by saying that in voting against the creation of a separate position, I was in effect voting for combining this position with what we have been calling the Mayor's position, and that I am completely in favor of the jurors having an independent person to refer to for advice about procedure. I just don't think it is necessary for that function to be a separate position from what we have been calling the Mayor, and that the recordkeeping functions that we have designated to that position would go well with the requirements of this new Loremaster position.

Is that clear?

That's exactly my opinion, Voronwe, and the reason why I've voted against the second position, too!

I, too, am completely in favor of the jurors having an independent person to refer to for advice about procedure. That is why I voted in favor of creating that position.

I have had a change of heart on the question of the mayor performing that function. Previously I had stated that if the idea of creating that office were rejected by the committee, I preferred the idea of the Mayor overseeing hearings, than to have that duty assigned to the admins. I was concerned that admins already have enough to do.

However, it seems to me that the Mayor also has enough to do assessing the contributory presence of the membership and keeping track of admins. Furthermore, the Mayor would have a conflict of interest in overseeing procedure for a hearing involving him/herself, so there would have to be additional complications to the charter to guarantee against that happening. Also, I think it begins to concentrate too many duties and therefore too much influence in one person. Finally, I see no logical reason to involve the Mayor in hearings.

If we vote down the idea of creating a position of procedural expert to support the hearings process, then it seems to me we're essentially saying we don't need a procedural expert to support the hearings process. I definitely don't think the office of Mayor should be used as a catch-all for any duties we think up that it would be in the purview of an elected official to perform.

If we decide against a procedural expert, and if a jury felt the need to have someone keep an eye on procedure for them, I suppose they could ask one of the admins to do that; an admin has to keep track of a hearing anyway, to enable posters and the like.

The admins have far more responsibilities then the Mayor, currently. I think it makes the most sense to combine the Loremaster and Mayor positions into one, and have two of them, and call them Loremasters instead of Mayor. This position would be responsible for knowing what's what at b77, from keeping the lists of people eligible for admin and jury duty to being a resource about the by-laws for jurors and others.

Then we can forget about the Mayor altogether, and let admins concentrate on adminning.

I don't think we can forget about the Mayor without nullifying the current Charter ratification. It seems to me we would need a rather compelling reason to do that.

The role of Mayor as currently defined, and the role of procedural expert as we've discussed it seem very dissimilar to me. It doesn't make much sense to me to call them the same thing (especially if that would involve a complicated undoing of much of what we've already done).

I'm really not trying to be a pain in the neck, Voronwe.