Author
|
Topic: virus: Two requests for tonight debate (Read 867 times) |
|
JD
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.01
Rate JD
|
 |
virus: Two requests for tonight debate
« on: 2003-10-07 17:51:12 » |
 |
Dear Fellows,
I will miss the big indaba tonight about our discipline. Please could
you consider two points on my behalf:
1. Defeasibility/Corrigibility. Please can we make it a clear that any
process is subject to review and reconstitution. Perhaps we ought to
build in fixed review points on all policies to make sure they are
achieving their aims. These processes, like all laws, must be subject to
repeal and review.
2. Scale/proportion. Please can there be some discussion about how we
might measure the scale of an offence or whether it is worthy of
activating the disciplinary process. I see a danger of the process being
abused through trivial demands for action where it is not warranted.
Thanks and good luck tonight. May agreements and goodwill grow like
mushrooms on body of the church.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.78
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:virus: Two requests for tonight debate
« Reply #1 on: 2003-10-07 19:27:06 » |
|
[Hermit 2] As a general comment, I think that Jonathan Davis has still not got the point made both in the Disciplinary Process document and the introduction, so pardon me if I repeat it. This is not a "legal" process. It is a dialog. All of the measures raised belong quite properly in, and would be appropriate to a "legal" process. As would manuals full of rules, lawyers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, bailiffs, bailbondsmen, appeal courts, etc. etc. Aside from Jonathan Davis, who seems to want this for a process which should, I hope, be seldom required, I'm hoping nobody else wants to go down this path.
[Hermit 2] Let me try to respond to his questions anyway.
[Jonathan Davis 1] 1. Defeasibility/Corrigibility. Please can we make it a clear that any process is subject to review and reconstitution. Perhaps we ought to build in fixed review points on all policies to make sure they are achieving their aims. These processes, like all laws, must be subject to repeal and review.
[Hermit 2] There is already a "repeal" system defined in the Wiki. We are an evolutionary organization and the emergent systems we are engaged in developing reflect this.
[Jonathan Davis 1] 2. Scale/proportion. Please can there be some discussion about how we might measure the scale of an offence or whether it is worthy of activating the disciplinary process. I see a danger of the process being abused through trivial demands for action where it is not warranted.
[Hermit 2] Any complaint has to pass through a dual process of:
Initial review by the Council before establishing a Reconciliation Commitee.
Review by the Reconciliation Commitee.
[Hermit] Any complaint which does not in the opinion of the Council require action will be closed off there unless the complainant is left unsatisfied with that resolution, in which case a reconciliation committee will be appointed anyway. Any complaint forwarded to a Reconciliation Committee will lead to a dialog with one or more parties, who will resolve the situation and if they consider it necessary may lead to other actions as laid down. Invalid claims will be dealt with similarly, in dialog, in order to resolve the situation.
[Hermit 2] The record of any disciplinary action is dealt with via a private BBS channel. This serves to provide a record for review by the council.
[Hermit 2] The point being that unless the Council and Reconciliation Commitees take appropriate action to achieve resolution when a complaint is made, that leads to the permanent settlement of the issues raised, the likelihood is that the same people and issues will continue to play out in and on our forums. Which is exactly what the process is designed to avoid, Again, this is not a legal process. Discarding dissatisfaction as not significant enough or worthy enough of activating the process is exactly the wrong way to procede. And it is probably worth reminding everyone that the Reconsiliation Commitees have the ability to resolve issues with complainants too. And if needed, will. At the end of the day, we don't seek "justice", we seek useable and attractive forums.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.01
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: Two requests for tonight debate
« Reply #2 on: 2003-10-07 20:40:33 » |
|
So much for me being in bed by 00:40!
"We seek useable and attractive forums". If this is the simple aim then
maybe a simple solution of an (elected?) moderator(s) sufficient. Perhaps a
system of nominated referees is preferable*. I like the idea of a trusted
ombudsman with the option of an appeal to the council. I think we might look
at the Roman Tribune for an example of what I mean.
It seems to me that the procedure is now presented as a solution for day to
day interventions and disputes whereas I see it as something reserved for
serious problems and offenders. Given that its ultimate sanction is
disownment, it seems to have massive scope. I see it sold as a near
toothless and gentle way of keeping forums useable and attractive yet it
ultimately can lead to disownment, as near to a death penalty as on can get
in an online community. This scope and matters such as what constitutes
"keeping the forums attractive" need close attention and detailed
explication. One man's flood is another man's legitimate defence and we need
a foolproof way of ensuring these matters are dealt with fairly and
effectively.
For now I think the community can police itself day to day and only requires
intervention when the guidelines are flouted and serious conflicts occur (or
there is *serious* violation of the rules). I think this is where our
efforts are best spent: informal escalation "circuit-breakers", informal
conflict resolution/adjudication and a formal discipline system for
*serious* violations of serious, well defined rules.
Kind regards
Jonathan
* We all record who we would be happy to have as a referees - if there is an
overlap, that person referees the dispute or argument. This will fall into
two categories: The argument or issue under discussion or behaviour related
to how the argument is conducted. So, disputants might request a referee to
sum up a position, close a thread or decide if it I fruitful or not to
continue. Alternatively, they can be asked to judge whether statements or
implied statements are offensive, abusive or unnecessarily personal.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Hermit
Sent: 08 October 2003 00:27
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re:virus: Two requests for tonight debate
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
