Re: [ga-rules] Assembly Voting on Suspensions

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>
To: "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Cc: "[ga-rules]" <ga-rules@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 11:24 PM
Subject: [ga-rules] Assembly Voting on Suspensions


> 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.
>
> Hi Joop
>
> Interesting proposal but perhaps you need to express the wording more
> clearly.  Your system could, for example, be used to put up the name of
the
> person that receives more than X complaints about a single posting up on
the
> web for a vote of all GA members on 4 week removal.
>
> The trouble is that any X greater than two is unlikely to be attained.
> There are many complaints but not all about the same posting.  In fact the
> very volume of posts means that complaints are diffused over many posts.
>
> The only way to do that is to switch from examining complaints on a "per
> post" basis and do it on a "per person" basis.  That method would be way
> open to abuse.  In fact, it would be more than likely to increase the
level
> of onlist *attacks*.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> As you might expect, I will post this to [ga-rules] for further debate.

Ahh. Punishment by popularity. Like Clinton. Because he was popular he
didn't commit perjury, he just lied about having sex with an intern.
Nevermind it was under oath. He was popular.

What I am trying to point out is what happens when someone posts their
opinion and it is a very unpopular opinion and the person saying it is
unpopular as well. Does that give the person less right to voice their
opinion. No IMO. A vote therefore would not be the way to go IMO. A very
popular person would most likely always get the minimum suspension and an
unpopular one would get the max. Not a fair system.

Try this approach. Maintain your committee or panel. Let the committee or
panel review reports of abuse by Moderators only. Moderators make their own
decisions and the decision sticks unless appealed by the individual being
basnned to the panel of moderators who can overturn one moderators decision.
If all the Moderators police themselves the system works fine IMO and it
give an individual the right to be heard and possibly have their posting
rights reinstated. It also expedites decisions as they are made by a single
Moderator with no panel discussion.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>

--
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