Re: [ga-rules] Assembly Voting on Suspensions

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Patrick and all,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Chris
>
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 11:31:32 -0700, Chris McElroy aka NameCritic wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Agreed.  It was suggested more to give "legitimacy" to the decision.  Some
> have argued that reliance on a single list monitor is unfair because he or
> she is inherently subjective.  Others have said that there is no provision
> for more than one list monitor.

  No need for a list monitor at all really.  If their are not rules that are
of the members approval (Majority Vote for each rule) than any
decision by any number of "Monitors" is going to be subjective at best...

>
>
> The rules must allow some flexibility as the GA is always getting bogged
> down in debate about rules and protocols.

  Isn't this sub-list supposed to be about discussing new rules, rule changes,
need for any rules, and potential protocols???

>  Even the DNSO Secretariat refuses
> to change the list settings without a majority vote from the whole General
> Assembly.

  I agree with her here...

>
>
> Personally, I'd rather just have one person as list monitor.  In the members
> are very outraged about a decision, they can coalesce into a motion and a
> vote to overturn the decision.

  This is a possible solution, but leaves the person accused and banned,
not method of appealing to the assembly members adequately ...

>
>
> > 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 banned 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.
>
> The point's moot at the moment as they are only two list monitors -- not a
> committee of three.  Perhaps the Chair will leave that alone for a while.

  I hope not.  Two or even three is not enough.  5 is barely expectable.

>
>
> So the first (M1) says "this is what I think".  The second (M2) agrees or
> not.  Which view should prevail M1 or M2?
>
> At the moment M1 picks it up first.  If one has a veto then a system of
> allocating cases has to be devised.  It's agreeing on fair procedures that
> takes the most time.
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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