UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Misconduct Procedures

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

First Iteration

i think this is a great idea... a great idea... my main concern is that it's solely a 'crat decision... it'd put too much power in the hands of the 'crats? which opens a big can of worms, like strengthening calls for a third 'crat and consecutive term limits, etc. etc. i dunno what's better, though. --WanYao 10:41, 13 April 2008 (BST) erm, yeah ... there's a comment by Funt Solo in the 3rd crat voting that pretty much makes explicit the links between these two policies... hmnnph. --WanYao 10:43, 13 April 2008 (BST)

But, the 'crats are voted in by the community, and are voted in on the basis that they're trusted to make these big decisions (like whether to create sysops in the first place), in view of the opinions of the entire community, and their own best judgement. If they can be trusted to create sysops, then why not trusted to remove their powers when it's necessary? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 10:46, 13 April 2008 (BST)
As for the links between the policies, there is one in my mind, but this one is written clearly to allow for stalemate, in the event that an even number (e.g. two) of 'crats are currently active. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 10:46, 13 April 2008 (BST)
No they aren't they're voted on the basis of how little they actually do with their current powers, the less around a promotions bid the likelier a promotion.--Karekmaps?! 10:50, 13 April 2008 (BST)
That's how you see it, Karek. I see it as I've outlined. I'll give you an example: I've always voted boxy for 'crat because I trust his ability to make an impartial judgement, and not to be swayed by persuasive personalities who don't make sensible arguments. (And, I've had my disagreements with boxy in the past.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 10:54, 13 April 2008 (BST)
That's funny, He's one of the three 'Crats who I can think of have done something that shows why they shouldn't have the power to auto-demote in the past. Although it involved Grim so I can understand why you might not have a problem with it. There's also the Thari incident a while back, the promotion of Amazing, etc. Cases where 'Crats have shown abysmally horrible judgement abound.--Karekmaps?! 11:03, 13 April 2008 (BST)
Hmmm - that's a separate argument, I think. Would you instead consider a sysop vote to be more reasonable? That question also to WanYao. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 11:06, 13 April 2008 (BST)
Yeah... a sysop vote or a sysop "tribubal" or jury, that sort of thing... seems more appropriate to me. But, of course, there are so many problems with that, too. Just the power to demote a sysop being the hands of 2 -- or 3 -- people is scary. The power to promote is one thing. But to fire, to can someone... and ruin their reputation etc... that's a very different matter. --WanYao 14:09, 13 April 2008 (BST)
That's, in part, the current method, actually. A Misconduct punishment can result in demotion it's just insanely rare and extremely unlikely.--Karekmaps?! 15:43, 13 April 2008 (BST)
Indeed. Of course, there's no cut-off period (it's just whoever shouts "ruling" first and then doesn't get argued with too much), and any actual punishment is incredibly rare. (It really is the epitome of an "old boy's club" in those terms: the facade of punishment without anything actually taking place.) I guess all this policy is doing is regulating the decision-making process and forcing a judgement of Misconduct to actually result in a measurable punishment. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:03, 13 April 2008 (BST)
Far to rowdy to be an old boys club... If you look at the real problem cases the problem is more that sysops disagree and argue so much that the "moderate" version is always taken as a compromise. What you have here would actually help a lot by streamlining it. Making it less argumentative and actually more "old boy's club" like offset by an increasing in the penalty.-- Vista  +1  20:23, 13 April 2008 (BST)

So many things wrong with this version of it, the biggest being that instead of actually making misconduct mean anything with the 'Crats we have now and have had for about a year+ this would actually lead to less punishment for actually performing miscondcut in all but the few cases where the 'Crat dislikes the user for whatever reason. Not to mention that last thing we need is to give 'Crats more power. What this really needs to be, if anything, is simply a few small things. A minimum punishment, preferably along the lines of a timed ban, not a warning(or non-punishment used to let sysops off easy). And, possibly, an upper limit of misconduct verdicts before forced removal, 8-10 seems more than fair. --Karekmaps?! 10:50, 13 April 2008 (BST) +

Oh and scrap the clean slate thing, that opens up a whole new world of abusable double standards.--Karekmaps?! 10:50, 13 April 2008 (BST)
Interesting ideas for alterations. I'm going to leave this open without making reactive changes (for now), to see what the rest of the community think, both of the policy as worded, and of your suggestions. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 10:57, 13 April 2008 (BST)
I agree with Karek's changes for the most part. I think the of guilty verdicts before removal should be drastically lower, perhaps 3-5. I also disagree with the removal of the clean slate upon re-promotion - a demoted sysop is going to have a hard enough time being accepted by the community such that they would deserve to be able to start afresh. What makes an arbitrary number of verdicts before removal tough to implement, I think, is the high prevalence of very very minor cases that nobody - not even the user who started them - believes should result in punishment. I am unsure of how this could be resolved - perhaps if there is some controversy a vote amongst the sysops could be held? --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 11:17, 13 April 2008 (BST)
Yes, there's a dichotomy of purpose in Misconduct as it stands - people use it for minor things because they know (I think) that the punishments are often negligable, slap-on-the-wrist affairs. Perhaps such minor offenses could be taken instead to Arbitration, and not Misconduct? Or, allow whoever's voting to indicate the punishment in their vote as (for example) Serious Misconduct, Minor Misconduct and Not Misconduct. First, a majority of Not wins, then (if guilty), the majority of Serious vs. Minor wins for either a warning or an escalation (reverse-respectively). --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 11:24, 13 April 2008 (BST)
That's a pretty good idea. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 11:31, 13 April 2008 (BST)
How would that work if you'd have 10 not guilty 5 minor and 6 serious? Obvious, a bare majority (11/21) would think it misconduct, but almost three quarters (15/21) would find the offense not serious at all. As I read your position here it could result in fairly slanted minority ruling with all the problems which that involves.-- Vista  +1  20:34, 13 April 2008 (BST)
apparently outdated. sorry.-- Vista  +1  20:35, 13 April 2008 (BST)

Second Iteration

Major changes have now been made, resulting from the first discussion. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:03, 13 April 2008 (BST)


Question: currently Minor Misconduct is effectively the same as Not Misconduct, except semantically. Should there be any punishment? Or a warning not to do it again? Or a flat, non-escalating, 24-hour demotion? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:06, 13 April 2008 (BST)

A combination of the second two would be ideal, I think - for the first minor misconduct ruling a warning not to do it again, and any subsequent rulings punishable by flat 24-hour demotions. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 12:09, 13 April 2008 (BST)

Ugh.. this is worse. It's now too complicated. Before it was three strikes, you're out. Period. Perfect. Now you're attempting to imitate VB with bans... meh... this is much worse the old version. Make it 3 strikes, you're out. No bans, no limbo states, just very straightforward. Now, Minor Misconducts I have to think about... because I think it's a good thing to have... but how do you handle it, exactly? and, how is minor vs. major definied? I dunno... But 2 minors = 1 major? Maybe .... --WanYao 14:16, 13 April 2008 (BST)

Dealing with points in turn:
  • Warnings vs. temp. removal of status: the problem with warnings, as pointed out by Karek, was that essentially it provides immunity to Misconduct, whether it was really serious or not. Misconduct of Sysop powers is supposedly a serious business, so a punishment of a temp. removal of status seems a fair deterent, if the charge is a serious one. (It doesn't seem any more complicated to me - only different, as regards what the escalations are.)
  • Imitating A/VB: well, why not? It's a simple system of crime and punishment. Why not a similar, simple system for what is essentially Sysop vandalism? The entire reason for this policy is that, currently, even when found guilty of Misconduct, most Sysops tend to go completely unpunished. If the only punishment is "please don't do that again", then what's the impetus for a Sysop to comply with the request?
  • Serious vs. Minor: it's sometimes the case (as with A/VB) that a charge is brought, and found to be correctly brought, but the offense is of such a minor nature that a soft warning is appropriate. Minor allows for the same sort of thing. It's not complicated, really - it's just applying a reasonable opportunity to apply a punishment appropriate to the offence. And no, 2 minor do not equal 1 major: it's not arithmetic-linked. The idea is that there are two levels of Misconduct - the Serious level leads to the escalations, the Minor level does not.
  • There remains the question of what to apply in the case of a minor misconduct, as discussed above with Cyberbob. I think a flat, 24-hour removal of status (for each offence) would suffice. It could serve as a strong warning to the sysop that they've over-reached their powers. This would not be linked into the serious misconduct escalation tree.
  • Given such a system, there is the question of what would be done about a sysop who played the game by continually accepting 24-hour demotions under the Minor Misconduct system - but then, we have to trust the sysop team as a whole not to put up with such tomfoolery and start altering their votes to Serious Misconduct if someone were to take the piss in the described manner.
--Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:36, 13 April 2008 (BST)
I've added a Minor Misconduct section. Obviously, the entire policy is still up for debate - nothing's set in stone (except perhaps the idea that something like this is needed). --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:44, 13 April 2008 (BST)
Three strikes and you're out ought to be deterrent enough, no? There is no need for bans. Bans are counter-productive -- I mean, shit, we NEED sysops online and doing their jobs -- not offline for some pointless slap-in-the wrist ban because they didn't have their morning coffee yet, and thus crankily banned someone they shouldn't have? There is punishment, there is deterrent, it's built into the 3 strikes yer out system. It's simple, you fuck up 3 times, you're no longer a sysop. Simple. Isn't that a deterrent? --WanYao 16:20, 13 April 2008 (BST)
Demotion for minor miscondcut ? Hah! I'd rather be banned than having my powers removed only to have then granted again in due time. Think about the whole trouble of getting a crat to demote someone and give them powers back in 24h... a single 24h ban not only will punish the sysop and prevent him from using his abilities (unless he want to face another misconduct case), but it will also automatically grant editing and administration rights to the user. And removing the crat from this proccess (as banning self is a sysop ability) will allow the most honorable sysops to ban self as punishming for their doing, a practice that was once common in this wiki.
And the serious misconduct punishment escalation is too short. And you want to compare it to the current system we have in place in A/VB, but you don't explain how a sysops can lower his misconduct escalation, the same way a normal user can remove a warning every month and 250 edits. edit: just re-read the policy and noticed that there is a descalation system: you can't descalate. IMHO, that's bullshit.
And, finally, your judgement process is too long. Usually misconduct cases are solved in less than a day, only the most controversial cases are the ones to last for a week... your system make ALL cases last for more than 2 weeks! --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:22, 13 April 2008 (BST)
IMO. 3 strikes and you're out is plenty. As it stands, that is more lenient than the current system: one big strike and you're done. Or... 6 Minor Misconducts and yer out... 6 minors points to a systematic, if not blatant, problem with you as a sysop... It works... And it's simple. All this complication is retarded, and I'd prefer the current system to a big convuluted token economy of bans and warnings... --WanYao 16:26, 13 April 2008 (BST) gorram edit conflicting haggis you punk!! ;P
And that's why i like the current system. A sysop needs to fuck BIG to get his powers removed. I think only three sysops had their powers removed because they fucked big... amazing (whose promotion itself was wrongly made), librarianbrent (who lost his crat powers because he promoted amazing) and jedaz (for his evil template from hell). No other sysop EVER has done something that caused harm to the wiki. They might have been found guilty of misconduct, but their overall contributions to the administration team was always more postive than negative. This policy only serves to create MORE red tape, and get long term sysops (such as myself) to eventually have their powers removed. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:41, 13 April 2008 (BST)
And yet a long-term user taken to A/VB has no such defence of "their overall contributions [being] more postive than negative", do they? They face a simple punishment system. Why should the sysops not face similar? And, long-term sysops (such as yourself) would only fall foul of the system I'm proposing if they continually flouted their powers to a great degree. I'm in agreement with some of the points you've made above (such as limiting the time it takes, or altering the escalation/de-escalation processes), but not in dismissing the idea altogether. The current Misconduct system is a mere back-slapping exercise - surely you'd rather something that was fair and above board, with clearly understood boundaries? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:52, 13 April 2008 (BST)
Even though I dislike the proposed implementation... I agree wholeheartedly with FS's rationale behind the changes. Seriously... if you're a good sysop and you don't fuck up, this should never, ever be an issue. Even a few Minors, or a Major or two... you're still a sysop. This offers accountability and transparancy -- and holds sysops to the exact same kind of procedures as a regular user. Without being unfair in any way. This is a good thing... No? --WanYao 17:08, 13 April 2008 (BST)
regular users have their defense: the vandal de-escalation process and the new punishment system. It takes a shorter time for one to de-escalate, and there is no more automatically perma-ban - such kind of punishment must be voted to occur. With your system, a sysop could be demoted rather quick, as the rate of inactivity on sysops ranks is great and a sysop with an active antagonizing group could be easily be harshly punished than others sysops. The current system is NOT a back-slapping exercise, as several sysops have been already found guilty of misconduct and punished in it. While they remained with their powers, they still had to answer for their actions. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 17:10, 13 April 2008 (BST)
I'm taking into account both WanYao's worries (over-complication, the 3 strikes idea) and your own, Hagnat (some form of de-escalation, and a shorter time to the conclusion of a case), and so am thinking on a third version of this (in time). However, it's spurious to equate a regular user's permanent ban with the removal of sysop powers. A sysop is free to re-apply, whereas a permanently banned user is not. My motives are best explained with WanYao's words: "accountability and transparancy": things the current system lacks. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 17:23, 13 April 2008 (BST)
Still, a regular user has no chance to come back whatsoever, while a Sysop under these changes would still be a User on this wiki (his status and remanence as a User unaffected by his Misconduct charges) and thus, be able to run again for Sysop status if he wishes so. There's no parallelism to draw unless you suddenly come up with "a permabanned vandal can apply to be reinserted in the community". Edit-conflicted, Funt said something alike above. --Starplatinum 17:26, 13 April 2008 (BST)
I am one totally in favor of having a policy being created to allow some perma-banned users to return. And i think that the community won't vouch a sysop who was found guilty of 3 major misconduct cases to be promoted again... anyway, since funt said there will be a third version for this policy, there is little to discuss until he update it. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 17:55, 13 April 2008 (BST)

I like the entire Minor, Major and Not thing, but could we not call it seriouz? How about Abuse, or something? Also, the minor thing, I'm not really sold on that. If a sysop accidently deletes something (has happened) and someone takes them to A/M they get stripped of their tools for a day? And what happens if boxy/Vantar falls off a cliff and is otherwise unable to promote the user again? (Or is busy for whatever reason, pick your story). Perhaps a 12 hour ban? A sysop can already be demoted if there is some serious abuse, however rare. I do like the general idea, just needs some fixes. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:27, 13 April 2008 (BST)

This is exactly why I don't want to see bans. They make no sense. And are, I'll say it again, counter-productive. Now... HaggisGnat... You're talking about stuff I didn't even bring up, I'm not trying to be rude here... but stuff about back-slapping contests, etc... that's not part of my point... And quite irrelevant to my point, too... And, again, if you don't fuck up, you won't get demoted. Period. You yourself said serious misconduct cases have been VERY rare ... and I'd hope that continies... I expect it to continue... So, 3 strikes you're out would, actually, I'd hope, be a rare occurance. Meanwhile... I never actually said that the records couldn't be stricken, just like a Ban/Warning... But... it'd have to be a longer time than Vandal Bans, one level every year, perhaps, is what I have in mind... Now, seriously... If sysops are generally doing their jobs, what do you have to fear from some accountability and transparancy? --WanYao 18:31, 13 April 2008 (BST)

Third Iteration

I've made several changes. Serious has become Major. The Minor status removal is reduced to 12 hours. The time to decision is reduced to 4 days. There remains two key points from the discussion above:

  • De-escalation: any suggestions welcome, although my own preference is not to introduce one, as a sysop may re-apply for their position, which would be the de-escalation in effect. If the community still wants them as sysop (after three cases of Major Misconduct), then they should get to say so, or not.
  • Escalation: 3 strikes and out (as it was, with no punishment except the final demotion) vs. escalating status removal (as it is now). Which system do people prefer? Some form of punishment, I'd argue, is necessary for a case of Major Misconduct, which we should remember is very rare.

--Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 17:57, 13 April 2008 (BST)

Instead of having the sysops powers being automatically removed after a third strike, get him to have his sysop powers to be evaluated by the community, as i did when grim asked mine to be removed. If the community still trust the user with the powers, then he de-escalate back to the start. If they dont, not only will he lose his sysop powers, but will also tell the user when be will able to ask for a promotion. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:15, 13 April 2008 (BST)
That's a good idea, although they would be free to ask for the re-evaluation themselves in any case, wouldn't they, by re-applying? Can you explain why you think one is better than the other? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 18:22, 13 April 2008 (BST)
One is automatic. Third strike? BAM. lose powers! you can reapply, want some cake with that ? The other is based on commmunity concensus. Third strike? What does the community feels about this particular sysop ? Does they trust him or not? As you can see, the second seems a lot friendlier than the other, and still allows the sysop to use his powers while his position is under evaluation. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:31, 13 April 2008 (BST)
Fuck that. Excuse my anglo-saxon, but, well... yeah... this is silly. The Misconduct case itself is the opportunity for the sysop's contributions etc. to be judged. Well... not entirely... but sorta... The Misconduct case is the chance for the sysop to be "put on trial"... If you've got that far, IMO you don't really deserve a FOURTH CHANCE to win a popularity contest... And then a FIFTH CHANCE to run for sysop again... Fuck that, it's retarded. Seriously... Stop complicating this... A good policy doesn't have to be my way or the highway... but yous (well, hagnat...) are taking a bunch of overgrown, twisty backwoods trails to get to the destination... Transparancy and accountability are really very simple to achieve... and, frankly, we have more of it now than we would under these convoluted new proposals. --WanYao 18:39, 13 April 2008 (BST)
who said anything about a fifth chance ? The sysop is found guilty of major misconduct for a third time, he then get his position reviewed. If in this process he is demoted, he can ask for a promotion in the future, but now he knows how the community feels about him, and there is little chance of him getting his powers back soon once the community has told him that they dont trust him. This not only is friendlier than insta-demotion, but also is also fairer. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:57, 13 April 2008 (BST)
A very simple question, Hagnat... Do you really think that a sysop who has been found in Misconduct three times deserves a "review"? Or, do think maybe that, by that point, the sysop has proven themselves unfit to maintain their powers -- and thus should be demoted. Instantly. Automatically. Just like Joe User would get permabanned for demonstrating repeated bad-faith edits to the wiki? ... But, even if a sysop were demoted, they could still re-apply... And if the community decided for whatever reason that they wanted the person back... Viola! My system is a fair system. Perfectly fair. Just like in the real world, you fuck up several time, you're fired. And, you get three strikes... It's not like people will be getting demoted left right and centre -- unless they deserve it... Bluntly, I think you're being ridiculous, Hagnat, sorry, but I do. --WanYao 19:52, 13 April 2008 (BST) ... btw it was various people in my sysop nomination who said i needed to participate in moar policy discussions'... were you SURE about that??? ;P ... Seriously, though... I'm not trying to be a jerk here... But I just think this has got kind of ridiculous now... Sorry if my comments are harsh, but I tend to shoot from the hip, and you can take or leave my words as you see fit... --WanYao 19:57, 13 April 2008 (BST)
It's not your skin that is on the way to be scalped. If this system were in use in the past, i think i would be in here talking as a normal user, rather than a sysop... mostly because i antagonized and were antaniized by the ruling users in the past. Same thing could happen tomorrow: if a sysops is antagonized by some of the sysop staff, he can be easily removed from the team, but alloweing the commmunity to voice their opinion wouldn't leave such a decision on the hands of a few. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 20:00, 13 April 2008 (BST)
I don't see why we should be against a forced community review. Typically non-sysops are discouraged from speaking up in misconduct proceedings, so the community review would give the community a voice to speak with on a specific sysop. Sysops should be serving the community, so if the community says: "We accept (sysop x)" then the rest of the sysops should look to see how their behavior and conduct may have to change with the continuing trends of the wiki. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 20:12, 13 April 2008 (BST)
They're discouraged unless they have something actually relevant the the case to add, unfortunately they usually add their own personal problems with the reported or reporter instead and it makes it harder on the people who actually have to read through all of it.--Karekmaps?! 05:28, 14 April 2008 (BST)
Okay, I'm not against what you suggest (Hagnat) entirely (although with a sysop vote preceding the community vote, it seems like a lot of voting/chances bundled together). I'll leave this alone now for approx. 24 hours, see what (if anything) the rest of the community has to say about it. (I'm assuming WanYao is still against the currently written escalation process, although the Not, Minor, Major system seems to have stronger support.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 18:42, 13 April 2008 (BST)
I'm just one opinionated loudmouth... ;) So let the rest of the community have a couple of days to get in on this... But, my personal opinion is that the policy is alright currently -- except for... I still don't support the counterproductive bans. And, I would support a de-escalation clause. Also, I would support the idea that, as a guideline, in any misconduct case, the voters are asked to a) consider the arguments from the community (i.e. Talk page discussions... which should be encouraged...) and b) to justify their votes. properly. This -- I hope -- can kind of assuage some of Hagnat's concerns... While still allowing for the simplicity, transparancy and accountability that I personally would like to see this policy bring about. --WanYao 18:50, 13 April 2008 (BST)
Actually I think Hagnat made some very good points.
On temporary demotion. First. How would you temporarily demote somebody? Unlike bans the wiki isn't made for demotions as a punishment. Temporary removal of sysop status is a real pain in the ass. It's all manual and only the bureaucrat can do it, so that means that only two (later maybe 3) people are able to demote a person in stead of a dozen able to ban. then instead reverting naturally like a ban a bureaucrat has to manually promote the person again after the alloted time. What if it's during the night for the bureaucrat? or work hours? etc. The demotions would deviate a lot from the alloted time with all the problems involved with that. I'm not for a punishment that would almost surely be a arbitrary amount of time by necessity and result almost certainly in a case against the bureaucrat for under or over clocking the demotion time.
second it's only symbolic for the person who receives the punishment and actually harmful for the wiki. The person will still be around but isn't able to do maintaince work, like speedy delete or ban people on a vandal spree. It's either all the fun, and none of the annoying bits. Or it is annoying to the sysop. because the wiki is being fucked up, and he's unable to do something about it. Banning would actually be more practical and better for the wiki and strangely enough both more punishing and more popular for the person ruled against.
On a demotion bid point is that sysops are there to work for the community. They aren't here serving for pleasure of the sysops team. So the community should have a voice in this. More then a popularity contest, it's a trust contest. Just have the bureaucrat write why the sysop is up for evaluation with links to the cases that lead up to it. And afterwards he can see if perhaps the users have enough trust in the sysop to override the demotion penalty. But the community trust should be overwhelming and in near total agreement.-- Vista  +1  21:11, 13 April 2008 (BST)
Akule and Vista have made some excellent points about the community evaluation... Which, even though they are opposed to my view, they actually run parallel in a way. Well, let me explain. My strong position is because I see a big logical inconsistencies here... On many levels... But, instead of dwelling on that, let's take a totally different approach. Let's run with what Akule and Vista said... And even Hagnat... And to me the extreme logical conclusion is to ditch sysop rulings altogether! And have it be entirely the will of the community... Ok, I know that's a little sily... maybe... But... do you get my point? I'm arguing for something as simple and transparent as possible. And what I am seeing are plans to make things even more complicated and probably less transparent. I don't get it... This is why I don't get involved in policy discussions... I feel like a crazy man screaming at a crowd in a different language... And it's not a case of not understanding the "mysteries of teh wikah"... It's a fundamental paradigmatic difference in how I believe things ought to be done... Thus... I'm dropping out of this debate, too. Good luck. --WanYao 23:08, 13 April 2008 (BST)
Actually, that is an interesting idea. Let everyone in the community be welcome to constructively comment on a misconduct case, and then have a bureaucrat rule on it after a few days of discussion. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 23:29, 13 April 2008 (BST)
There was strong opposition to my initial idea (see the edits, and first discussion) of having bureaucrats rule on Misconduct cases. The trouble with full community votes on Misconduct cases is that it may turn into a popularity contest (weak reason) and simply the time it takes to perform a full community vote (strong reason) - two weeks being the standard across this wiki. (I'm strongly swayed by Vista's points, and will return to a new version of this later today - in the meantime, interesting and strong points being made, so I'm going to go back to stealth mode.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 08:12, 14 April 2008 (BST)
Oh. My. God. If you make every goddamn Misconduct case require a full community vote I'll have your guts for garters. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 08:18, 14 April 2008 (BST)
</stealth>No, I'm arguing against that aspect of the discussion. We recommend sysops to the 'crat team on the basis that part of their remit is judging their peers in Misconduct cases. We, the unwashed masses, must, at that point, take a back seat. I'm happy with that. In other words - no full community vote on Misconduct cases - it would turn it into a (bigger) circus. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:13, 14 April 2008 (BST)
Thank you. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 10:42, 14 April 2008 (BST)
I was more thinking that the community should be allowed to speak on the matter if they have anything relevant to say. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 02:15, 15 April 2008 (BST)

I think that, in the grounds of the difficulty to implement demotion periods, and in order to separate completely Misconduct from Vandalism in the same fashion most countries separate civil suits from commercial ones, Misconduct shouldn't carry any punishment (being a banning period most undesirable), but some kind of serious "Misconduct warning". This way, a Sysops would have two or three misconduct warnings and at the last one permitted, he either gets demoted automatically or gets reviewed in some system of your choosing: this is still being debated heatedly above.

Also, I think the process that you explained in that we come to the Misconduct ruling should be reviewed. If we look at the history, many cases are well known for taking forever and multiple contradictory votes: this, this, this and this are some examples. While I see this policy as being brought a tad bit early because it would be good to have clear if we'll have or not 3 resident Bureaucrats, if that other policy passes it would be a nice option (I don't know if people will agree or not) to have only Bureaucrats rule at the tail end, by a consensus of at least 2. That should end the endless votes and contradicting rulings that come every time a Misconduct case isn't a one-layered piece of cake. --Starplatinum 23:01, 13 April 2008 (BST)

Why shouldn't we be encouraging exactly that type of thing though? Misconduct cases should not be "Wham Bam Thank You Mam", they should be a large discussion covering all reasons for the action and reviewing the judgement of the SysOp being reported. It's an assessment of their judgement call at the time the actions were taken, not a trial to punish them although there should be punishment for making a bad or purposely negligent judgement call, it encourages thinking about what you're doing before you do it in more depth.--Karekmaps?! 10:48, 14 April 2008 (BST)

Tree

This simplified it for me.

    50% or more votes say "Not Misconduct"?
                /       \
               no      yes
               |        |
               |        v
               |    Not misconduct
               v
        50% or more of the "Misconduct" votes say "Minor Misconduct"?
               |               \
               no              yes
               |                |
               v                v
          Major misconduct   Minor misconduct


What I like in the current version of the proposal:

  • Simple decision tree
  • Clarity
  • Not getting vandalism charges involved
  • Abuse of mod powers results in loss of mod powers, which is fitting
  • There is a mechanism for de-escalations (re-promotions bids)
  • Re-promotion gives a clean slate
  • Escalations don't fall too quickly
  • Minor stuff doesn't build up
  • Discussion takes place before voting
  • A minimum time is given for discussion
  • A fixed procedure is given for voting

What I dislike in the current version:

  • No facility for 'just don't do it again' type rulings. (If you're wanting to avoid an 'old boy's network' I can understand why you would choose to not allow these; still, I remember them being used well in the past.)
  • It seems to encourage punishments for minor stuff, which may be better being overlooked.
  • 24 hours is likely to be too short a time for discussion. Not everyone is on the wiki daily.

Other stuff

  • We could write a recommendation on the misconduct page to ignore tiny mis-steps.
  • Possibility of slightly widening scope of misconduct to include poor behaviours that only a mod could do but that don't directly include mod powers, eg if a sysop bans someone and refuses to tell them what the ban was for.
  • Consideration of a "median vote" system where the middle vote is chosen (eg seven votes, ordered by severity, pick fourth vote - three votes on either side.)

--Toejam 05:05, 14 April 2008 (BST)

There is a huge problem with this system. Say we get 45% of the votes not misconduct, 25% minor misconduct and 30% serious misconduct. Accordingly to the system proposed, even though 70% of the votes says that it's an minor issue, it would be ruled as serious. This policy needs to be worded so that, if 50% of the total votes say it's not misconduct, it's not misconduct; If 50% of the total says it's serious, it's serious; if none of these two, then it's a minor misconduct. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 12:10, 14 April 2008 (BST)
Oops! Yes, silly me. Thanks for that, Hagnat. Will fix. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:47, 14 April 2008 (BST)
What's wrong with a simple plural system? --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 12:51, 14 April 2008 (BST)
If you mean guilty or not guilty, it doesn't allow for softer warnings as readily. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 13:02, 14 April 2008 (BST)

Fourth Iteration

Okay, I've made more significant changes, but not all the changes that have been proposed. I've done the following:

  • Dropped Minor Misconduct to a soft warning style, instead of a punishment.
  • Dropped the "temp. loss of powers" aspect of Major Misconduct and reverted to the original "three strikes and out" system.
  • Added another day to the discussion (so now it's 2 days to discuss, 3 days to vote). I think this quite closely mirrors the length of time a Misconduct case generally already takes - maybe a bit longer, but that leaves room for chilling out time, which is a good thing, right?
  • Added a proper de-escalation system so that Major Misconduct warnings can be bought back with good behaviour. Yum.
  • Changed the algorithm for figuring Not/Minor/Major (after Hagnat pointed out how flawed the previous version was).
  • (Some other semantic changes, like promoting discussion, but still off-page, as it were.)

And there's one main thing I haven't done:

  • I haven't introduced a community vote of confidence. I started writing it and it became very complicated very quickly. Then I thought about it. The chances of any Sysop getting to three Major Misconducts without really, really deserving it are so slim it's not even funny (or funneh). If they want the position, let them re-apply, and let that be the community's vote of confidence. As it is, the Sysop/'Crat team (elected by the community) will have already voted them out with a third Major Misconduct - it would seem odd to then immediately ask the entire community to vote, when half of them already did. In fact, I think that would be detrimental to the demoted sysop, tbh. The Sysop/'Crat team who'd just voted them out would only attempt to do so again. A little breathing space might be a good thing for the demoted Sysop in question - who (we should remember) is fictional, and would have had to work very hard to get demoted in the first place. I know Hagnat wants this part, and some other users, but I'd like to hear unanimous, strong support for the idea before I change it, as I don't think it's needed.

So, what now, brown cow? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 13:02, 14 April 2008 (BST)

How is it ruled if 50% says it's not misconduct and 50% says it's serious misconduct ? It does fit both requirements. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 13:06, 14 April 2008 (BST)
Damn your cold, hard, Vulcan logic, Hagnat! (I've changed it so that Not Misconduct wins.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 13:20, 14 April 2008 (BST)
I think a Minor Misconduct would be better in that case. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:32, 14 April 2008 (BST)
changing both percentages to 51% or more would make it so that, in case of a drawn, it would be ruled minor misconduct. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 13:41, 14 April 2008 (BST)
1/2 plus one votes specifically for a Major = Major. Any 1/2 plus one combination of Major/Minor = a Minor misconduct. Anything under 1/2 plus one for Misconduct, and you Get Out of Jail Free. Simple, no? --WanYao 13:50, 14 April 2008 (BST)
Ok. My only problem is what if someone keeps getting Minors, on different issues, but consistently? There is no way for that person to receive anything but a slap on the wrist for such continuous "minor bad behavior"... Dig? --WanYao 13:55, 14 April 2008 (BST)
The policy does says something about a repeating offender having a ruling on a minor issue being punished as a serious misconduct. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 13:58, 14 April 2008 (BST)
It refers to two Minors on the same issue, basically. Or that's how it reads. I'll quote it in a sec, if necessary. --WanYao 14:01, 14 April 2008 (BST)
"Any repeat of the Minor Misconduct (taking into account the specifics of the case) may be fairly treated as Major Misconduct (see below) by the judging Sysop/Bureaucrat team" -- See? Only on the same case. Not on a series of different cases. Or so it looks. At any rate, it's unclear. --WanYao 14:03, 14 April 2008 (BST)
wouldn't half the votes plus one be more than 51% ? Now you are the one overcomplicating stuff in here. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 13:56, 14 April 2008 (BST)
No, it's not over-complicating. Not at all. Half-plus-one is exactly how it's done in the real world. Whereas 51% is not a real number... Half-plus-one is. --WanYao 14:01, 14 April 2008 (BST)


(I'm breaking off from the indentation - it's getting complicated.) I went with McHagnat's 51% solution (just edited it). WanYao, consistent Minor Misconduct is covered, sort of, with the specific bullet that states that repeated offences of the same type may be treated as Major Misconduct by the voters. It's all down to the voters. If they are sick and tired of someone creating Minor Misconduct cases, they can vote Major, with the reasoning that the accused has received prior warning. Anything more specific makes it too rigid a system - it's supposed to be loose like this. I mean, if it was "6 minors = 1 major", and all the incidences of minor were daft little mistakes that nevertheless directly opposed policy - well, I don't think anyone would want a Sysop forced out when it doesn't make sense to do so. The current solution is loose, allowing for the Psyopicrat team to tailor their judgement to suit the case, whilst still providing a framework that everyone can follow and understand. (I still have no idea if this is going to pass or not - as per usual, some users are conspicuous by their absence. I hate the idea of proposing a policy that is secretly doomed to failure - I mean, what's the point?) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:06, 14 April 2008 (BST)

Okay fair enough with the minor/majopr thing. But ... anything other than half-plus-one does not actually lead to a bona fide majority quorum. For example, Half plus one of 10 = 6 = 60%. 6/10 is a majority of 10. 5/10 is not a majority, however. A 5/10 vote fails half-plus-one. Half-plus-one is simple, straightforward. That's how votes are done in real world committees and parliaments, etc. etc. --WanYao 14:10, 14 April 2008 (BST)
Heh - I added a bullet anyway. Can just as easily remove it. It's still loose as all hell. Regarding your "half plus one" - I don't see the difference between it and 51%, and I think more people will understand what 51% means, so for now I'll leave it. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:13, 14 April 2008 (BST)
half-plus-one will only be needed when we have more than 100 active voting sysops. Other than that, 51% is a lot easier to word out and understand. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:18, 14 April 2008 (BST)
I might be misunderstanding 'half plus one' voting, but here's an example to show the difference:
  • Three voters, 51% or more system: Two yes votes and a no (66% majority) would make the vote pass.
  • Three voters, half-plus-one system: Half of 3 votes is 1.5 votes, 1.5 plus one gives 2.5 votes, so you need more than 2.5 yes votes to pass. So this time two yes votes and a no would make the vote fail, which is different from the previous system. --Toejam 16:45, 14 April 2008 (BST)
Oh, right - thanks, Toejam, I get it now. I still don't want to use it, because it takes quite a long time to explain to people who aren't familiar with it. Most people at least understand what 51% means without a long-winded (or even any) explanation. I hope. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 17:12, 14 April 2008 (BST)


Care to add a line saying that both the reported and reporting users are not allowed to vote ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:16, 14 April 2008 (BST)
Pointless, if the reporter is a SysOp I actually think their opinion should be counted in the matter, even if it is considered predetermined. As for the other, I haven't read the new version of this policy, just skimmed this section but, wouldn't it be more common sense to automatically "round" up in the case of misconduct, it's essentially half the users saying the sysop made a bad judgement call, with the reporter also saying the same, and it's obvious at such a point that it's not clear that it wasn't misconduct. Misconduct always struck me as one of those things where you need to justify your judgement call not the reverse because, frankly, everyone else's input is generally going to be conjecture and speculation on your intentions for the most part.--Karekmaps?! 14:21, 14 April 2008 (BST)
My preferred system was one where the judgement was made by the 'crat team - but there seemed to be strong opposition to that, so a vote is what I was left with, and it seems fair to find in favour of Not Misconduct, giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused. I see no reason not to add what Hagnat's requested - anyone else feel strongly about it? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:28, 14 April 2008 (BST)
Ugh... "1/2 plus one" is needed most when it's a small number, not when it's over 100... but forget it. As for the people involved in the case voting or not, it seems like bad form to me... But, as Karek says, does it make a difference, really? Dunno...--WanYao 15:02, 14 April 2008 (BST)
I changed it so that they can't vote. If there's an outcry, I'm still willing to go back on that part. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 17:12, 14 April 2008 (BST)
  • I agree with pretty much all the changes listed above in Funt's bullet point list at the top of this section. This new algorithm is better than the older one, and harder to game.
  • From the page: "Any Sysop found guilty of Minor Misconduct must accept that the action they took was not an acceptable use of their Sysop-specific powers." Sometimes sysops are going to think their misconduct case reached the wrong decision (and sometimes they'll be right!) So I don't think we should order them to _think_ they did wrong. What a sysop thinks is their business, and not ours, so I think this line should be changed.
  • The bottom two bullet points in minor misconduct seem a bit unclear. --Toejam Edited 20:11, 14 April 2008 (BST)
I suppose I'm attempting to differentiate it from Not to some degree. You're right - they are unclear. Perhaps those points are best left unsaid. After all, it's up to the voters what they vote, and how they justify it. (I wasn't trying to tell sysops what to think, only to accept that their behaviour was considered, by the majority, to be unacceptable. Again, perhaps best left unsaid.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 18:41, 14 April 2008 (BST)

Another thing that buggers me: Why have a 48h dialogue between the reporting and reported users ? Several cases have been solved without the need for the reported sysop to even say a word. Why keep the rest of the administration team away from the discussion ? The best thing would be an open discussion between the reporting user and the admin staff (reported sysops included) and, if they fail to reach a decision, have the proposed 3 days voting between the admin staff. That would allow minor cases to be solved in just a few hours, instead of the fixed amount of five days that this policy forces every case to last. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:03, 14 April 2008 (BST)

Good points. I'll think on a further iteration. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 18:41, 14 April 2008 (BST)

Quite Simply: A Bad Idea

Seriously; you're on iteration four. Drop it; this is going to do nothing but add more complication to the already crazy-ass rules that haunt this wiki. The only thing that this is going to accomplish is that the sysops are going to stop actually doing things because hey, look, every jackass on the planet throws 'em up for misconduct for the smallest, dumbest things, and then NOW there's an escalation?

Fuck that. This is a stupid idea and deserves to be trashed.--Jorm 19:11, 14 April 2008 (BST)

*CLAP**CLAP**CLAP**CLAP* That's why i <3 u jorm :) --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 19:17, 14 April 2008 (BST)
You know, for ages I thought that the <3 thing was a pair of bollocks - and I couldn't figure out why people were bollocking each other all over the 'net. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 21:00, 14 April 2008 (BST)
Jorm - most of my policy proposals go through various iterations during discussion - that's what discussion is for - to refine the policy. It's still fairly close to what I started with. Call it fine-tuning, if you want. (Or, to put it another way, apply your logic to, say, the motor car. They're on iteration n of the motor car - does that mean it's a bad invention?) To tackle your actual complaint head on: you're suggesting that fear of Misconduct will freeze the Sysop team? I hardly think so. At the moment, they face a Misconduct process that has no limit to the punishments it can enforce, and no regulation of said. Imagine if the A/VB system were as loosely based as that: there'd be no protection at all for unpopular users that fall foul of bad-tempered sysops. Oh, I can't even be bothered to find you examples - there are plenty - where the A/VB system has managed to stop regular users just being arbitrarily thrown off this wiki for the crime of not getting on very well with a clique. I'm fully willing to accept that this policy may fail in a vote - that's fine - that's what the policy process is for - to make a decision either way. But I'm not going to ditch it just because a loud-mouth trolls me: even reacting to you this far's left a bad taste in my mouth, considering your utter lack of anything constructive to offer. If, I don't know - ten users I respect (yes, there are that many) immediately follow this comment with "Funt, just drop it - it's pointless", I'll drop it. Bring 'em on, I'll know when I'm beat. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 21:00, 14 April 2008 (BST)
I'm not trying to troll you, and I don't think there is anything that can be truly constructive to add to this. It's a bad idea. They happen. Everyone has them from time to time.--Jorm 21:16, 14 April 2008 (BST)
Even if you think there is nothing that could improve someone else's idea, it is possible to say so without swearing and name-calling, which could be considered socially constructive. Anyway, you run a completely different system to this wiki for your own online game, where (correct me if I've got this wrong) your word is law, and there are no procedures, and no policy votes: it's your way or the highway. That's not the way this wiki is run: and Kevan, when asked to act on matters, often suggests policy creation as the solution. I'm just using the system I've been given. If you'd rather a similar system to yours was used here, then you'll have to suggest some policy changes of your own. Or, you could just shout "fuck that...stupid idea" and walk off into the sunset. Very cool, daddio. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 21:28, 14 April 2008 (BST)
/me checks the logs, rereads his own comments; fails to find "name calling." Are you sure you're not confusing my comments with someone else's?
But anyway, this isn't about the way my wiki is run or not. I'm saying, as a user, this is a bad idea for a policy and I'm doing so during the discussion period which is what I am supposed to do. At least, unless I got that whole, "users get to talk about policies" thing mixed up. You're using the system we're given; so am I. I am using it to say, "This is a bad idea, and it makes a hide-bound wiki system even more rules lawyerly."
I'm sorry if that isn't sugar coated enough for you.--Jorm 21:36, 14 April 2008 (BST)
Regarding name-calling, I was referring to the inferred stupidity. I'm sensitive like that. That aside (I'm not that sensitive), I actually proposed this policy to stop Misconduct rules lawyering. There was a case, recently enough, where Grim reported Hagnat for Misconduct and the ruling (using the loophole of there being no set rules to the system) provided a sort of Solomon's Judgement where Grim and Hagnat were tasked to work together on (metaphorically) sewing a baby together that had previously been cut in half by rabid zombies. Grim quite rightly pointed out that their diametrically opposed views on the subject prevented any such activity from working (as he flailed his half of the baby around the debating chamber, covering everyone in blood), and that the judgement was fundamentally flawed. Then he wandered off into the desert, never to be seen again. I just don't see what's wrong with a clear system with an obvious input-process-output, rather than a system that allows such a chaotic non-resolution. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 21:56, 14 April 2008 (BST)

I think I have to agree with this header for entirely different reasons. In theory it's nice to see a more concrete method of accountability for sysops but in practice it makes things even more politicized when there's some misconduct "life bar" each sysop has. The less popular sysops are more likely to get a Major instead of a Minor misconduct (sorry, I see a fair amount of bias in severity of a lot of A/VB or A/M cases I've seen that I can only attribute to popularity) and when they've got a couple Majors under their belt could be more coerced to "play ball" with the rest of the sysops on unrelated disagreements. I like the principle of this a lot, but I think it's chilling to free speech in practice due to the amount of leeway already given to sysop personal judgment. A lot of other restrictions on what a sysop can do individually (like perhaps a higher quorum for A/VB or some kind of limit to how much a personal judgment of "good" or "bad" faith can have on A/VB or A/M cases, forgive me if either of these have been suggested/shot down cause I don't have time to go through the archives) would need to be in place for this kind of policy to have any effect on overly networked sysop cliques besides solidify them and severely limit other sysops' ability to object or overrule. --Riseabove 22:56, 14 April 2008 (BST)

This is one of my concerns about this policy. Popularity. The most popular sysops will rarely get seriously punished, while a sysop with a group of antagonizing sysops will have any misconduct case ruled as serious, independently of how frivolous the case is. As in my last case created by Grim, where he asked for my demotion for protecting a page without going through the proper channels. Or like matthew fahrenheidt got misonducted for frivilous stuff, just because some of us didnt like him in that position. For the rest of your concerns, riseabove, we have several users in the administration staff. If anyone rule on a vandal case is found to be wrong, there will be several others to change that fact. You can see an example of this in the recent case against LaughingMan, where a vandalism ruling was overuled by three other sysops. If the initial ruling was right, then others sysops would support it when it was contested, and a misconduct case be created if any damage had occured. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 23:31, 14 April 2008 (BST)
I see the point that's being made, but I'm also wary of the oft-used popularity argument. I actually trust the Sysop team, as a whole, to come to fair decisions, overall. I also trust this community, as a whole, to come to fair decisions, overall. What you're saying about cliques and popularity can be as easily ascribed to the current Misconduct procedures - actually, more so. A transparent system such as this actually asks the entire sysop/crat team to participate, where the current system does not. It states limits and clear guidelines on punishments. It encourages soft warnings. Even in the worst case scenario described, where a 51% majority of the sysop team gang up on another sysop (three times) to have them demoted, has the safeguard of the community as a whole being able to vote an unfairly demoted sysop back to the post (well, assuming the 'crats are to be trusted). But here's the rub: who chose the 'crats? The wiki. Who (therefore) chose the sysops? The wiki. Who creates the policies? The wiki. That's your oversight, right there. And go, please, and take a look at the sysop list. Remind yourself who's active. Can you honestly say that you actively distrust over half of those people and think them capable of underhandedly ditching a sysop for purely personal reasons? Do you think that the entire community would stand by and let that happen? I mean, really - if you think this wiki is that unbalanced, why would you even want to spend time here? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 23:44, 14 April 2008 (BST)
For the lulz ? gotta admit, i liek teh drama :) --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 23:47, 14 April 2008 (BST)
I <3 you, Wingnut. Hurr. (I felt quite good about this policy about half way back up the page, but now, I don't know...maybe I should put it to the vote.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 23:51, 14 April 2008 (BST)
Perhaps you could summarize the policy and place it at the top. Right now, just looking at this policy makes it seem quite complicated. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:07, 15 April 2008 (BST)
Please say you are not bollocking me. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 02:21, 15 April 2008 (BST)
Okay: "you are not bollocking me". (Thanks, Gnome - that was helpful, and you are little. And a Gnome.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:04, 15 April 2008 (BST)

Fifth Iteration

Yes - a fifth! I hope this doesn't cause Jorm's head to explode in a fit of apoplexy. </sarcasm> Changes:

  • Various Toejam ideas, regarding simplifying the Minor Misconduct.
  • The 2 day discussion period can be quashed by the accused and the accuser, on agreement.

Not changed:

  • Still a forced three day vote period, in order to give everyone (most) a chance of taking part.
  • No fast track decision prior to the vote: that's the system we currently have.
  • Discussion still relegated to the discussion page - keep things cleaner like with A/VB.

--Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 21:44, 14 April 2008 (BST)

I'd prefer if there was no time limit on anything. If nothing seems to be happening, then the case can be archived. What's the hurry?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:46, 14 April 2008 (BST)
To stop things dragging out into a long-winded drama-fest. Nothing to stop it being a short-winded drama fest, but we can't have everything. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 21:56, 14 April 2008 (BST)

I remember the old rule for misconduct where if you banned someone wrongly you'd receive whatever size ban you'd given out. So if you made a mistake permabanning someone, you'd be banned forever. That was a crazy system. --Toejam 03:29, 15 April 2008 (BST)

You'd only be banned for the duration the unfortunate user had spent banned by the time someone corrected the mistake. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 05:22, 15 April 2008 (BST)
Just out of interest - who banned Amazing? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:05, 15 April 2008 (BST)
Nubis, then Xoid (a bunch of banned users had to be unblocked and reblocked due to software problems). --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:28, 15 April 2008 (BST)

Ready for vote?

Is it time? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:15, 15 April 2008 (BST)

So the preliminary discussion time is taken form what point? The point the sysop is made aware he is being brought up on a misconduct charge? Or when he responds to the charge? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 16:02, 15 April 2008 (BST)
The discussion time starts when the case is brought. That's the way the current system works, and the way A/VB works. The discussion period is more a cooling off / courtesy / cogitation-for-all than anything else. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:52, 15 April 2008 (BST)
At the moment, the discusson of the case and the pseudo-voting take place together, which creates a miasma of pestilence until it reaches a critical mass (or a random sysop gets bored) and a ruling is made. I'm trying to get away from that. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:57, 15 April 2008 (BST)

The judgement could be worded as "more than 50% (without rounding)" instead of "51% or more". Simple and beautiful, and essentially results in "half plus one" even if we ever get more than 200 sysops voting on a case (which is the limit where the currently described system would start to require "half plus two"). --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 17:08, 15 April 2008 (BST)

Did that, and also added in a clause about damage reversal being part of any judgement, and up to the 'crat team to define. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 15:30, 16 April 2008 (BST)

Sixth Iteration

Minor jiggling of the format. The main difference is that the 'crat team is tasked with any reversal of actions that should take place, if there's controversy over that aspect of a case. Sorely tempted to put this to the vote now, and the discussion has either died a death or tailed off. Any more for any more before I press the 'Go' button? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 10:39, 17 April 2008 (BST)

Egads. Just put it to the vote already. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 11:24, 17 April 2008 (BST)
Gadzooks! Okay, then. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 11:31, 17 April 2008 (BST)

Votes Discussion

  1. Against - I really like the idea, but I think the differences between major and minor misconduct should be quite explicit, and that the time limits should be longer. --ZsL 15:18, 17 April 2008 (BST)
    Grah! (and other howls of frustration). I wish you'd brought up your concerns before the vote. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 15:30, 17 April 2008 (BST)
    Me too, I've been busy lately. --ZsL 15:40, 17 April 2008 (BST)
    Slaying zombies, I don't doubt. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 15:48, 17 April 2008 (BST)

More Discussion During Vote

Since I'm new I'll just apologize for being too late to put this suggestion to the group prior to the commencement of voting. I personally think that the best thing to do would be for a dual vote procedure. This doesn't mean two separate votes but that everyone who votes submits in the following format not misconduct/not misconduct or misconduct/minor misconduct and lastly misconduct/major misconduct ... Where a victory by not misconduct/not misconduct results in immediate acquittal and a victory by misconduct/anything automatically converts not misconduct votes into minor misconduct votes and counts the new tally. The reason for changing the not votes into minor votes is that if a person was thought to be innocent by a voter the worst they would want to see laid as punishment would be minor and not converting them makes all not misconduct votes irrelevant to determining the degree of punishment. Sorry for the over use of bold and sorry if this is confusing, I dropped out of law school. Flash Badness April 18th 21:23 EST

My $2.45

The entire proposal is founded on the demonstrably flawed process of democracy, see my vote on the policy, as well as my more detailed ramble about the failings of democracy as a system for running things in a place such as this, see UDwiki:Voting for common failings of many people on this wiki when it comes to voicing an opinion on pretty much any subject.

Above all other concerns i will raise here, the first, and most important of these, is that democracy does not determine what is best or right, but simply what is most liked. This is why spin and jargon is so effective in swaying the public opinion on many things. When it comes to important matters, what is liked is not always what is best decision, in fact, the two only occasionally cross paths. Hence my call for a rigid system for determining fault in misconduct.

Another concern is that people naturally form cliques of like minded individuals, and oppose others. You see this right on up from classrooms, professions (At my workplace we arent too fond of the Occupational Health and Safety people, because they set a standard thats near impossible to reach, let alone maintain for us. Though, given the number of second degree burns ive copped in the last week, maybe we should listen a little), towns, cities, and even countries (Sports, trade and warfare for simple examples).

Now, while these cliques may seem quite benign or harmless, what you get is cliques voting against outsiders, or, more accurately, protecting the insiders. Now consider a clique having the numerical majority. The minority will always lose, unless its impossible for the clique to protect its own (Example, a clique member goes down to the shops with a gun and shoots everyone wearing green T shirts), or persecute said opponents.

This wiki, being a game wiki and community, quite naturally has younger members. A lot of them. As a result, maturity is quite often distinctly lacking, but most of all, what is lacking is the discipline required to make democracy actually work properly. The whole concept of democracy as a system is to make a decision based upon what the larger number of people thinks is the right thing to do, as opposed to, as we have at present, make the decision in favour of the way that more people get what they want, which may well be getting rid of someone they dont like, or furthering a vendetta against a user, or ensuring that all people must wear red polkadot dresses.

Basically, these two forces alone would make democracy perfectly useless as a system for determining right and wrong on a case by case basis. Then theres pretty much everything else i listed in the article i wrote oh so many months ago stacked up against it. While in theory, its a wonderful and thoughtful way to make the best decision possible every time, the end result is a system that is easily abused by any like minded majority to do whatever they please, and dont say it wont happen, because it has happened and continues to happen on a semi regular basis here, and has happened throughout history ever since we came up with the concept. Its a nice hypothesis that giving a voice to the people will make for better governance, but the plain fact of the matter is that people are stupid. As i have heard it said, the IQ of a mob is that of its dumbest member divided by the size of that mob.

Also, a democratic system doesnt hold to precedent until rules are changed, and so you can get wildly inconsistent verdicts which just plain isnt fair to anybody, least of all the person who gets nailed to the wall by the ears for something that another guy got a slap on the wrist for.

Hence my call for a shift to concensus a while back, and, on this issue, a shift to rigid inflexable procedures for dealing with these matters. A simple example has been quickly drawn up by myself below.

Charge X has been made agaisnt sysop Y for allegedly breaking rule Z.

1:Did X break Z. Yes/No
1a: If not, Not Misconduct.
1b: If so, did X defy the purpose of Z's creation? Yes/No
1bI: If not, Not Misconduct.
1bII: If Yes, Misconduct.

We still have the policy creation pages for most of our policies, it should be pretty easy to drag up the reason for these policies creation, and if not, then it should be quite simple to decide by concensus what the spirit of each rule actually is and write it down. The scale of the abuse should not be an issue. Due process defied? Thats a black mark. Posting private information. Goodbye. Ruling different ways on otherwise identicle cases to let a buddy off or persecute someone you dont like? Dont let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.

There is a reason our legal systems are cold, unfeeling, and unyeilding. Its to prevent such abuses from occurring and make sure that everyone gets as fair a go as is humanly possible. Given the litigous environment here, we need to adopt or create something similiar, especially given the scale of power abuse that was, and may still be going on (I dont visit often, and i havent taken the time to go look for any of late). --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 05:03, 22 April 2008 (BST)

I'm inclined to agree on the need for a cold, unfeeling and unyielding system (both for A/VB and A/M), but therein lies a problem. If you want to include the "spirit of the rules" in the consideration, you have to go both ways with breaking the rule. It's ridiculously easy to go against the spirit of the rule while staying within it, especially with loosely defined rules (duping suggestions is a good example). Thus the significance of whether the accused actually broke the rules is reduced greatly, and the actual rule can't be anything more than a guideline, which results in the coldness, unfeelingness and unyieldingness going straight out the window. The more you take "the spirit of the rules" into account, the less "cold, unfeeling, and unyeilding" the system becomes, and vice versa. They are mutually exclusive. A compromise somewhere between them is possible, but you can't have both. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:06, 23 April 2008 (BST)
Actually, you can have both. As i said, all that is needed to be done is to specify the spirit of the rule within the rule itself, expressly allowing for exceptions where the defined spirit counteracts the actual written rule. Its not perfect6, but its still pretty darn good. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 13:03, 24 April 2008 (BST)
Even if the spirit of the rule was written down, it's still highly subjective whether or not the accused defied it. Why? Because abiding by the spirit of the rule depends on why you broke the actual rule. Motivation. It's unprovable and can only be speculated about. Deciding whether someone went against the spirit of the rule is a judgement call, and judgement calls are the opposite of cold, unfeeling, and unyielding. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 14:13, 24 April 2008 (BST)
I agree that democracy isn't working. However, a pure black & white rule system is impossible to achieve, and anyway nothing like western legal systems, which have things like judges and jurys to make up for the fact that things aren't black and white, and are usually subjective. What I think is needed, then, are some judges or jurys. Some people trusted to steer the negotiations of a proper consensus system. A vote of "" should count for nothing. A vote of "this idea sucks" should count for nothing. Twelve votes of "argument A" should count as a single voice for "argument A". (I shouldn't even call them votes.)--Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:23, 24 April 2008 (BST)


Is there anyone else who can tell how much of a hard-on Grim gets every time he uses the phrase "cold, unfeeling and unyielding", or is it just me? --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 15:05, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Voting

Should the voting have closed by now? --Grarr 22:36, 2 May 2008 (BST)

Yes.--Karekmaps?! 13:41, 3 May 2008 (BST)