[ga] Re: The real reason the rules don't work.....

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Patrick,

Saturday, July 07, 2001, 10:54:10 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Jul 2001 21:43:25 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> The real reason is that the moderators are not free to act on their
>> own initiative and to act in a precipitous fashion to complaints,
>> since they have to hash everything out by committee under our current
>> chair's "rules."
>>
>> The moderators need to be independent and free to act on complaints
>> individually.

> Hi William

> I must say that I'm surprised that you should be saying that.  The main
> reason the panel system was set up was to avoid allegations of bias that
> might occur with a single decision-maker.

Those allegations would be brought up in the appeal to the chair.

> It was a trade-off of *fairness* as opposed to *expediency*.

Surely you don't see the paralysis that resulted as increasing either
fairness or expediency?

> With only two people adjudicating, I do not see a problem.  One will make
> the determination (Monitor 1) and the other will confirm the decision
> (Monitor 2).

> If both agree, the notice will be sent out.

If the one dealing with the complaint makes a determination, unless
that decision is overridden by the chair, it should stand as is.

Multiple moderators should not be in place to rule by "committee" on
decisions, but instead to alleviate some of the work load and allow
the amount of time involved to be at a minimum for each moderator.

-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

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