[ga] Re: [ga-rules] Assembly Voting on Suspensions

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Report from ga-rules to ga.
(the sub-lists were created provided their Chair would report to the GA. No 
Chair having been elected, I will from now on assume the role of reporting 
sub-list to the GA since the alt-Chair was kind enoug to subscribe me on 
all of them - what you cannot do in just accessing to the DNSO.org site. In 
so doing I respect the USCANN ByLaws when calling for Transparency).

This mail is of real interest: I will only quote abstracts not to bore the GA.

> > 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.

It means that every Friday, the GA will vote to approve the most delatted 
people. Decidely an improvement on the list being kept for NC use only. 
Good point!

Response by the alt-Chair
> > 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.

This seem to indicate that most of the complaints against A come from
B only and that most of the complaints against B comes from A only.
Extremely complex problem...

> > 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*.

And the concerne of A (sorry, Patrick) is that B could send several
complaints more and kill him for 4 weeks. Very Good point. Tense exchange!

<snip: I do make cut offs>

> > 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.

Look!

> > 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.

Simple, neat, easy. The more complaints, the less voters, the higher
density of interested pople, the longer silent is the list.

> > As you might expect, I will post this to [ga-rules] for further debate.

Yes! every of you should go on GA-RULES (just ask A, sorry, Patrick,
to subcribe you in case you tried dnso.org in vain: dnso.org does not
know about sub-lists.

>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.

The smash: they forgot to remove the support from the total.

If B get 40% for suspension and 35% against, we are in the
year braket. But if you remove supporter from opponents
we only are on the 5%,  three days braket!

Now what if the support defeats the suspension: if B gets
30% for suspension and 40% against, how can we give
him one week of no-suspension? suspending the whole
list for one week? or suspending A????

>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.

Obvious!

Exactly the article the Uruguyan constitution I suggested. These guies
(our guests in september) have a huge system. If the Governement takes
a decision, the Cabinet Ministers may decide to vote againt their own
Governement. Looks silly, but actually when you consider it, it is brillant.
It means that each Minister may decide and react quickly by his own:
if he is a Minister it means he is cute and knows what the others think.
And if the others think he is wrong they may legally disapprove without
entering into a Government crisis.

Jefsey

--
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