Re: [ga-rules] Assembly Voting on Suspensions

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

Hello Joop and Patrick,

> On Sun, 08 Jul 2001 14:47:37 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>> I would like to request your instruction to the list monitors that ,
>> instead of judging and sentencing rulebreakers themselves , they are
>> authorized by the Chair to pass on names of offenders (people they get
>> repeated ga-abuse complaints about) to a List Polling Officer, who will
>> put up these names for an ostracism vote by the participants.

I am afraid that the "ostracism" system can be abused 
more easily than the list monitor system:

If a majority doesn't like the view of a certain minority, 
they can simply vote to throw them out. They do not have
to defend their vote (list monitors have to defend their
judgement), and overturning the vote would be seen as 
decision against the will of the majority. Additionally,
there is the problem of turnout. If there is no or a low 
threshold, the decision may be taken only by the people 
that feel especially offended by a person (e.g. someone
criticizing the IETF or alt.roots or IDNO or whatever). 
If there is a high threshold, a violation of the rules
may go without reaction. And I am afraid that the
turnout will drop if there is a large number of votes.

Patrick Corliss wrote on 08.07.01, 16:24:43:
> I think there should be an option for reference to the members but only if
> the members themselves were unhappy about a decision made in the first
> place.  A good example would be my decision to allow Eric Dierker's appeal.
> This prompted Harald's protest resignation as List Monitor.  I'd be
> interested in how a vote would have gone.

That may be an option, but I think we will still have
the problems about turnout.

> One possibility, which I like very much, would be to base the length of the
> suspension on the will of the General Assembly.  If that was put to the
> vote, you could have a system where the number of voters determined the
> length of the suspension.
>
> For example, 25% support might mean two weeks, 50% mean a month, and 75% a
> year.  That way, the punishment will depend on the seriousness of the abuse.

This would only make sense if there really is a wide
range of time periods, e.g. between two weeks and a
year. However, I strongly disagree with the idea that
people can be banned for one year from the GA at their
first violation of the list rules! The current system 
(the length of the suspension generally doubles with 
each abuse) is superior.

Best regards,
/// Alexander
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-rules@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-rules" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html