Hi,
truehobbit.
Seeing that I'm absolutely opposed to punishing anyone before the crime has been committed
In the announcement thread texts of either model, the standards for objecting refer to behavior already evidenced, more specifically in the first model and more obliquely in the second. At least, that was our intent. In other words, objections are to be based on behavior already observed outside of ToE, that it can be assumed would be problematic if happening inside of ToE.
That said, I think the first option is slightly preferable, as it is more in keeping with the transparency ideals of this board.
My feeling has been that since the process can't be open for both ToE and the person being considered, then private objections are more just. In other words, since the person being considered won't be able to answer to objections made to their gaining access, then it is more fair that those objections be made privately (as is done when a member objects to someone becoming a Ranger). However, I can also see why a process that is more open, in however limited a way, would be favored by others.
The first, I suppose, would allow for a discussion to go on in ToE?
It was decided against allowing discussion. For one thing, the person being discussed wouldn't be there to defend themselves, and that is a very distasteful dynamic for some. Second, it was felt that allowing discussion would give rumor and personal dislike a greater chance of influencing the outcome, and would allow for a greater 'bandwagon' effect with people voting to object in support of friends rather than for reasons of their own or in support of valid reasons.
Still, I would wish for some provisions to enable the petitioner to defend him-/herself (if they are still interested in that after hearing about their possible rejection), especially in case the second option is chosen - and he or she should definitely know his or her accusers!
This idea was represented in the Bike Racks proposal that Lidless offered early on, but that wasn't incorporated into the ballot because there was no support expressed for such a confrontational procedure. It is felt by some that people simply will not make their objections known if the petitioner is going to know who did the objecting. But personally I agree with you, if a person is willing to accuse, then they should be willing for the accused to know it.
Also: is the decision up to a single Ranger? I think the decision on the validity of the objections (again, especially in case of the second option) should be made by at least a majority of Rangers.
In the case of the first proposal, there is no screening of objections done by the Rangers. Everything sent in to any Ranger will be summarized and posted in the thread, and it will be left to the ToE members to decide the validity of the objections (although the announcement thread text provides a guideline).
In the case of the second proposal, there is only to be a review for form, that is, to verify that the objection does in fact refer to some awareness of questionable conduct by the petitioner. Beyond that, objections will not be evaluated for legitimacy. We did discuss this at some length, and we felt that the broadness and seriousness of the standard in this case (have reason to believe the petitioner poses a danger to the community) will in itself render obvious any objections that fall outside the guidelines.
If there is such a serious case, there should be a more detailed process than just two statements and one Ranger judging the veracity of those!
On principle I would agree, but in wrangling out the reasons for having this provision (which are unfortunately embedded in the long discussions here and in JR), it was felt that to be of any use at all it has to be kept simple (there was concern about the possible reticence of a member to disclose an embarrassing or traumatic personal experience). I believe we had in mind that Rangers would be collectively reviewing such objections, though it would be to one to take the action. As Ax pointed out in discussion, we're not talking here about incarceration, but just about a restriction of posting rights.
A hearing is mentioned in the end - does it mean that in case of such an accusation a hearing is obligatory? I think it would be a good idea if it were!
A hearing would be at the request of the accused.
Thanks for your comments!