Warnings

[Tigerman]

@Omniloquacious

Thanks for the comments, Tigerman.

You’re very welcome, of course.

@Omniloquacious

I agree with you that juries are a highly flawed institution. Having had ample first-hand experience of their exasperating inconsistencies and limited ability to understand much of the evidence and arguments on which they’re supposed to be basing their decisions, I’ve long been in favour of drastically reducing or even completely abolishing their role in the English criminal justice system.

Very interesting. I have long been in favor of doing away with the current jury system in the US and replacing it with some sort of professional jury system. I agree that the technical nature of much of the evidence and the complexity of legal arguments and the judges’ instructions make American juries less than competent for the task entrusted to them. Moreover, the idea of “a jury of your peers” seems not to be practiced (how often is a doctor given a jury of his peers in a malpractice case?).

@Omniloquacious

However, in countries where the quality of judges and the wisdom and impartiality of their judgments fall well short of the extraordinarily high standards… the juries can still have a vital role to play.

Yes. But I believe that the Moderators could well act as the “professional” juries that I advocate back in the US.

@Omniloquacious

Nevertheless, and despite your possibly well-founded fears about the grounds on which people might cast their votes, I still think it would be a good idea to have the kind of “jury system” I’ve suggested for Segue.

I agree that the discussion regarding allegedly objectional posts is fun. But I still think the Moderators should act as the jury. Perhaps as a compromise to your suggestion, we, the regular posters, could act as the prosecution and defense and argue to the Moderators/jury?

@Omniloquacious

Here it would be as much a matter of fun as anything else, while defusing the potential for conflict and division among Segue moderators and posters.

Again I agree that this would all be fun. However, if the vote is to be democratic and among all registered posters and Moderators, there is potential for conflict and division among everyone. Imagine if after passionate debate a poster is banned by a single vote. That would, I think, create division and raise the likelihood of future conflict.

@Omniloquacious

No one can reasonably complain if they are warned or banned as the result of a majority decision by fellow posters (with everyone having the right to vote if they choose to exercise that right).

What if all posters do not vote, for whatever reason (such as those I identified)? The problem with this, IMO, not the idea so much as the practical implementation. I think it is much easier for the Moderators, whom I assume are more in tune than regular posters to the happenings of this board, to discuss and vote on the issue of banning than it is to get a fair and comprehensive vote from the regular posters.

@Omniloquacious

After all, we’re not talking about anything so serious as a criminal trial here.

Yeah, I almost forgot

@Omniloquacious

At the end of the day, no one is going to suffer or get terribly upset even if they are completely banned from this forum, no matter how much we enjoy and appreciate posting here. While warning or banning a poster amounts to casting aspersions on his or her character, which creates potential for unpleasant conflict and detracts from the friendly atmosphere that most people would wish to maintain here (and the maintenance of which is presumably one of the main reasons for appointing people to moderate the threads)

Then what would the Moderators do, if the responsibility of acting as moderators is given to us regular posters? Would they simply be enforcers? If yes, then there is no need to have moderators, I think.

@Omniloquacious

… having an objective and transparent poll-based system to ensure that those decisions were as “just” as possible would, I suggest, defuse ill feelings, bolster community solidarity, and be best in keeping with the spirit of Segue and its founders’ highest aspirations for it.

What do you think of my suggestion that we posters act as prosecutors and defense counsel, while the Moderators play the role of the jury, with respect to posters facing a ban? I think that would achieve your goals of ensuring “just” decisions and defusing ill feelings, bolstering community solidarity, and be best in keeping with the spirit of Segue and its founders’ highest aspirations.

[imyourbiggestfan]

Another problem with the democratic approach is “multiple personalities.” It is quite easy for one person to have more than one login ID. Therefore, their personal view could carry more than one vote.

[Omniloquacious]

[quote=“tigerman”]

Then what would the Moderators do, if the responsibility of acting as moderators is given to us regular posters? Would they simply be enforcers? If yes, then there is no need to have moderators, I think.

What do you think of my suggestion that we posters act as prosecutors and defense counsel, while the Moderators play the role of the jury, with respect to posters facing a ban? [/quote]

The mods would still perform their other important functions of keeping threads in order, moving misplaced threads to more appropriate forums, chipping in to pep up flagging discussions, and so on.

They would also continue to act as the Segue police, watching out for offensive posts and filing charges against the offending posters. But a moderator who filed charges against a poster would not have the final say in determining that poster’s guilt, which is inherently unfair and open to abuse. That would be decided by the jury poll. If done in the manner I suggested, it would be very simple and would not unduly burden them with extra duties.

I think it would also be reasonable to have just the mods, or a select panel of posters of a certain standing, cast their votes for or against the decision. But the matter should certainly be open to argument first (by anyone wishing to chip in) and the result of the vote made public.

We might also impose a suitable burden of proof in requiring the moderator pressing the charge to prove his case “beyond reasonable doubt.”

Regarding Sharky’s point about how long a warning should remain valid, I agree that a time limit ought to be imposed. Perhaps 3 months would be long enough. The onus would be placed on the person so warned, if he cared enough about it, to request the mods to erase the warning when the applicable time had expired. (If we wanted to get really sophisticated, we could have different categories of warning, such as 12 months for a serious offense and just one month for a minor transgression).

[Tigerman]

@Omniloquacious

The mods would still perform their other important functions of keeping threads in order, moving misplaced threads to more appropriate forums, chipping in to pep up flagging discussions, and so on.

OK.

[quote=“Omniloquacious”]They would also continue to act as the Segue police, watching out for offensive posts and filing charges against the offending posters. But a moderator who filed charges against a poster would not have the final say in determining that poster’s guilt, which is inherently unfair and open to abuse. That would be decided by the jury poll. If done in the manner I suggested, it would be very simple and would not unduly burden them with extra duties.

I think it would also be reasonable to have just the mods, or a select panel of posters of a certain standing, cast their votes for or against the decision. But the matter should certainly be open to argument first (by anyone wishing to chip in) and the result of the vote made public.

We might also impose a suitable burden of proof in requiring the moderator pressing the charge to prove his case “beyond reasonable doubt.”[/quote]

Yes, I like this.

@Omniloquacious

Regarding Sharky’s point about how long a warning should remain valid, I agree that a time limit ought to be imposed. Perhaps 3 months would be long enough. The onus would be placed on the person so warned, if he cared enough about it, to request the mods to erase the warning when the applicable time had expired. (If we wanted to get really sophisticated, we could have different categories of warning, such as 12 months for a serious offense and just one month for a minor transgression).

I also think its a good idea. But, just to be contrary, the difference between Sharky’s example of minors’ having their records cleaned and Segue posters having warnings erased is that with minors, the assumption is that they were young and should not be held accountable later in life for their youthful indiscretions. Segue posters, however, are all sophisticated and worldly adults, so far as I can tell , and I see no reason for leniency by way of expungement. Three strikes and you’re out!

[Lord_Lucan]

What about a “council” of elected posters forming a jury rather than the membership as a whole ? This council could form a group within Segue and could debate a banning and pass on their findings to the moderators ?

[Tigerman]

@hexuan

What about a “council” of elected posters forming a jury rather than the membership as a whole ? This council could form a group within Segue and could debate a banning and pass on their findings to the moderators ?

I think that would be similar to what Omni was suggesting… however, Omni is, I think, concerned about transparancy in the discussions.

And would the Moderators be “bound” by the findings of this “council”? Or would the Moderators then debate the findings of the “council”?

[Omniloquacious]

@hexuan

What about a “council” of elected posters forming a jury rather than the membership as a whole ? This council could form a group within Segue and could debate a banning and pass on their findings to the moderators ?

Yes, I think something along those lines could fit the bill nicely.

First of all, the “Council of Posters” could be elected by the simple process of
(1) calling for anyone interested to put their name forward as a candidate, with eligibility for candidacy subject to certain minimum requirements (e.g. at least 100 posts on Oriented/Segue and at least 3/4/6 or whatever months as a registered member);
(2) as long as a sufficient minimum number of candidates put their names forward (10, 12, 20,…??), proceeding with the election by listing the candidates in a yes/no or for/against poll; and
(2) inviting all registered members to cast votes either for or against each candidate – if any candidate gained more votes for than against, he would win election and become a member of the council.

Whenever a contested warning or ban called for the jury to be activated, a thread would be set up in accordance with my earlier suggestion. After the requisite period of open argument and debate, any members of the council who chose to participate would act as the jury and deliver a verdict (with a simple majority determining it either way).

Of course, if a member of the council was himself subject to a proposed warning or ban, he would be excluded from serving on the jury deliberating his case.

The jury’s verdict could have “persuasive authority.” Or, if it found in favour of the “defendant”, it could be considered binding unless overturned by a majority of all mods, in which case the warning or ban would still stand. Only if the moderator who originally issued the warning or ban chose to “appeal” against the jury’s decision would it be put to a vote by the mods. The mods would not necessarily have to vote – they could ignore the whole business if they so chose. But if a majority of all mods (not just those voting but all those holding the “office” of mod) voted to uphold the warning or ban, then that would stand as the final decision in the case.

How about that?

[wolf_reinhold]

Shit…I almost put in a long piece on banning and then realized that I had quoted Gus and other unnamed moderators from the private forum that I had temporary access to.
If the consensus of the mods agrees, I will copy and past this post back, but I didn’t want to piss anyone off by posting what could be construed as private material from the private thread.

Sorry Hex, ol’ chap.

[cranky_laowai]

If individuals want to grant permission for their own words to be reposted in public forums, that’s their business. But as a general principle, a private forum is exactly that: private.

[maoman]

I agree with Cranky.

[Lord_Lucan]

You can pm me Wolf with the text if you like and I can decide then whether I want it published. How about that ?

[wolf_reinhold]

Well Cranky and Mao, what did I say? I said I wouldn’t post it. Is there an echo in here?
I could, however, paraphrase and not attribute. Journos do this every day for their bread and butter…

[cranky_laowai]

You said, “If the consensus of the mods agrees, I will copy and past this post back.”

I am a mod and I said no, I do not agree to this in principle. Maoman is a mod and an administrator and he concurred. We were merely responding to your question.

If you take material from a private thread without permission, even if you “paraphrase and [do] not attribute,” you would most definitely piss some people off. I don’t advise trying it.

[wolf_reinhold]

Since you have more karma than me, I am quashed…