h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

For election - why not start out by having a vote where people can either vote yea or nay to each person. That way you don't need to wait until a large number of candidates come forward before holding the election. You could say, for example, that candidates require at least 20 Yea votes, and at least a 2:1 Yea-Nay ratio. Secret Ballot, of course.

The more the merrier, I reckon, initially at least. If/When there are twenty elected arbiters, then people can start having head-to-head competitions...

I'd say that you should not be allowed to nominate yourself - spare the process from time wasters somewhat...

We're allowing for almost half of the arbiters to disqualify themselves... that's a rather remarkable proportion. If, by chance, a quorum could not be met, then we could simply delay proceedings until we have enough.

Hmmm, I still think there should be more...

Elections, competition, this all encourages side-taking, rather like in "democracies" arbitrators may be tempted to make populist descisions to safeguard thier posts in the future....

Excellent ideas, Lucinda. We'd have to have some sort of protection against abuse in the voting system, though. Perhaps the Post staff (or whoever else volunteers to handle the election, if they can't handle itwould receive votes signed with the user number and name. That way, they could ensure that they're not receiving multiple votes (yea or nay) from a single source. The Post would be trusted to keep that information confidential, as well as the email addresses of the voters.

If the Post staff found more than one vote for a particular candidate from a single user, they could simply email that researcher, and ask them what they meant to vote. Only the true researcher could respond to that email. Otherwise, one could take email addresses off of people's pages and imitate them for the purposes of the election.

Well, choosing people who won't make populist decisions is part of the quality not quantity thing. (Did I post that one here, or in another thread?)

***B

Once elected, arbiters would not have to stand for re-election. This would eliminate the need for populism. An arbiter who did not perform up to expectations (fail to maintain neutrality and professionalism, fail to disqualify hirself due to conflict of interests, or generally act like a jerk) could be voted out by their peers (simple majority, or 2/3 majority?), or resign. It's also worth considering allowing the Towers to remove arbiters, although that might cast a shadow over their performance.

New vacancies would be filled by election, though.

Ok sounds good.

Not to sound too defeatist here, but If towers wanted an arbitrator out, the arbitrator would be out. no question.

Hey guys -

Just wanted to make sure you took a look at the revised proposal. Diddled with it most of the night. But it's 4 a.m. and I'll stop now.

Later.

-7rob7

~nodz~

yeah its gettin there

> "If towers wanted an arbitrator out, the arbitrator would be out"

Well, if it's aimed to be initially a volunteer scheme which doesn't make any kind of binding decisions on PTB, then the towers wouldn't need to do any kind of vetoing or anything at all - why should they get anything more than a single vote each in that circumstance?

Myself, I'm in favour of starting simple, anyway. In any case we should run a few test runs on manufactured disagreements between ourselves, just to see how it goes...

Sorry - rambling

Oo er, Mikey. The scheme *hasn't* recieved any official sanction, just to make this clear right now. We'll consider your suggestions, but the system has to be workable. I feel that this will be a pretty tall order from your side, but see what you can come up with, and we'll definitely discuss it here. But no promises, not at this stage.

I think maybe people didn't understand my use of the word "sanction". I wasn't meaning that the whole idea has been approved by TPTB and we will hence go forth -- I meant that we had received word that it was a worthwhile project to think about, and not totally impossible.

Sorry for any confusion

Mikey

Welcome Peta

It would be good to have some input from the towers on what might be considered 'workable'; any comments on the latest version much appreicated, and I am sure 7r7 will drop you and Mark a line in one of your personal space/s when he gets close to the final version.

***B

At this point, I'm not sure the article clearly reflects the things we've agreed on. I think we need a major reconstruction, because it is not yet clear, and it still leaves out some important stuff. For the moment, I think the conversations contain the good stuff. We can knock the page into shape as we go along.

And, as an alternative, we could present a completed plan to the Towers and get their feedback then, going through it point-by-point.

I agree with the Colonel.

This is looking really good, really official.

Here's what I got from the Magna Carta and the Telephone Sanitizer's Manual - First mediation, then arbitration, then an arbitration panel, then sent to the Powers for the final spanking.

Although legally it might be safer if the Powers has the final say-so on who gets slapped on the hand, I would really like to see this be a jury of the community, and the Powers taken entirely out of the loop. Otherwise the punishment really has no meaning, and the one being punished feels as if they're being persecuted (instead of prosecuted.) The panel needs to have the final say, because it's a little unfair to tell the defendant that they're going to be punished in this fashion, then have the Powers blind-side them with another punishment entirely. It also makes the arbitration meaningless. I know the Powers might not go for this. But if I were them, I'd want dedicated volunteers who have some emotional investment in the community, and want to get as much information possible, to be making these difficult decisions - rather than having to make the judgement call myself.

Just some thoughts... You guys seem to be doing just fine all by yourselves!

I agree with the Colonel (again) - the proposal is far from ready to present, and it would be extremely foolish to rush things. I'm/we're hoping to get it finished enough by this weekend to present it to the community at large, but there's a lot still to hash out first. And then it will need revision before being 'formally' presented to the Towers. Something with the potential to be as useful as we seem to think this is gonna take a reasonably long time to get right.

Though I will quibble that parts of it are very clear, especially the parts that are unclear.

-7rob7

Oh, yes - don't try to rush this project. We need to take our time and nail this sucker!