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

Provided for your feedback, my own draft for this thing. Two sections which have yet to be added, but need to be addressed, are an Arbiter code of ethics, and a system of accountability for failure to meet that code.

The following is my proposal for the Arbiter volunteer scheme.

What an Arbiter is:
- A respected representative of the community who acts in the interests of the community to find peaceful resolution of interpersonal conflicts.
- A safety valve for the paid staff.
- A guarantee to the community that punitive measures are being given out by the Towers on a fair, objective, and consistent manner.

What an Arbiter is not:
- A community police force.
- A tribunal designed to assign punishments for transgressions.
- A new Moderation Help Desk, where moderation issues can be reviewed by the community.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Arbiters will be selected in the following manner:

- Arbiters are to be nominated by members of the community. They must meet the following qualifications:
-- They must have been a member of good standing in the community for a minimum of 9 months.
-- They must be active members of the community, posting with a degree of regularity, lest issues carry on too long, lacking attention from the Arbiter.
-- They must have demonstrated a deep commitment to the community as a whole.
-- They must have exhibited great personal honor, an ability to accept criticism, and an ability to remain impartial and professional in contentious matters.
-- They must not be nominated by themselves, but by another member of the community.

- An election will be conducted by email on the initial nominees. A minimum of 20 yeay votes, and a minimum 2:1 ratio of yeay:nay will be required to advance them to the next step.

- Candidates will participate in a competitive election, where each voter may vote for 13 candidates. The 13 candidates with the highest number of votes will be passed on to the Towers for ratification.

- All ratified candidates will take their positions as Arbiters. Any vetoed positions will be refilled by another election, until 13 Arbiters have been elected and ratified.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Arbiter Task: Mediation

Arbiters will be called upon to mediate between researchers when significant problems arise. They can be called upon in any of the following means:
- A researcher feels abused in a thread, and calls upon the Arbiters for mediation.
- Two researchers feel they cannot resolve their differences, and both approach the Arbiters for mediation.
- A neutral party discovers a flame war getting out of hand, and seeks the attention of the Arbiters. An Arbiter then posts to the thread offering mediation.
- The Towers discover a situation getting out of hand, and recommends they seek mediation.

Mediation will involve a single Arbiter. Mediation will be conducted in a seperate forum on H2G2, or via email, depending on the wishes of the complainants. The Arbiter will begin the proceedings by asking the complainants the following questions:
- Do you accept me as an Arbiter? (If no, select another arbiter.)
- Do you wish to pursue mediation? (If no, escalate to arbitration.)
- Do you wish to conduct this mediation in public, or private?
- What do you hope to accomplish through mediation? (ex: Public apology, end of harassment, etc.)

The mediation process will continue for seven calendar days, with the Arbiter acting as an impartial neutral party, negotiating a settlement between the two parties. Both parties will agree to be bound by any agreements brokered during mediation. At any time during the proceedings, the Arbiter or the complainants can agree that the mediation process is not working, and can escalate it to Arbitration. If, after seven days, there is no working agreement, the situation will be escalated to arbitration. The Arbiter may, at their discretion, extend the mediation process beyond seven days, if they feel that an agreement can be reached.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Arbiter Task: Arbitration

A dispute that fails to reach resolution in mediation can be escalated to arbitration. Here, a panel of three arbiters will preside. The complainants will agree to be bound by the findings of arbitration. At the conclusion of arbitration, the Arbiters may request an apology by one or both complainants, an agreement to respect and avoid each other, or censure (give a stern talking-to) one or both complainants. In extreme cases, they may even contact the Towers and recommend punitive action, although such action remains at the discretion of the Towers (if the Towers chooses to follow the recommendation, such punitive action would not be subject to Official Inquiry). The original Arbiter should be included in the arbitration panel, although he/she may elect to disqualify themself due to a lack of impartiality, and the complainants may likewise request a change.

Arbitration will be conducted like a debate or formal hearing, in the following manner:
- Complainant A presents their complaint, providing references to all relevant H2G2 conversations, so everything can be read in its proper context.
- Complainant B rebuts.
- Complainant B presents their complaint, providing references to all relevant conversations.
- Complainant A rebuts.
- Complainant A summarizes.
- Complainant B summarizes.
- Arbiters address questions, as they desire, to specific complainants, to clarify any possible misconceptions. Complainants answer the questions directed to them, and remain on the subject, without making further accusations.
- Arbiters adjourn. Each writes up their interpretation of the events and recommendations. The majority decision is carried. If there is some confusion regarding the decision, they may deliberate amongst themselves until a concensus is reached.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Arbiter Task: Official Inquiry

Arbiters will be charged with investigating disputed punitive measures dealt out by the Towers. They will use the Terms and Conditions as specified by the Towers, and interpret them as they are written. This is to provide a safeguard among the community that the Towers are enforcing them in a fair, objective, and consistent manner, because the subjective nature of the Terms allows for unfair application. This also provides a safeguard to the Towers as a buffer for criticism, since a decision upheld by the Arbiters will leave little room for criticism among the community, allowing them to pursue activities more deserving of their time. The Arbiter explanations for the need for punishment would also prove to be educational to the recipient, and would relieve the Towers from having to explain themselves in detail in these cases.

With rare exceptions, every punitive act will be disputed by the recipient. To prevent frivolous inquiries, all inquiries must be requested by someone other than the recipient, and must be seconded by another third party. The Towers may request an inquiry at any time, should they desire.

During an inquiry, it is necessary to suspend a suspension or ban, until its conclusion, in order to allow the recipient to defend themself. If the penalty is a suspension or ban, the recipient must agree to post only to the inquiry forum for the duration of the inquiry. Any violation of this restriction will meet with an automatic upholding of the penalty. If this violation is in response to a suspension, and is in further violation of the T&C's, the Towers may increase the suspension or escalate to a ban, at their discretion, and this further action will not be subject to inquiry. Inquiries will not last longer than 7 calendar days.

Inquiries will consist of as many Arbiters as can be involved, although individuals may disqualify themselves (or be disqualified by the staff or recipient) due to conflict of interest, or lack of sufficient time to give to the matter. An odd number must be maintained, and no fewer than 7 Arbiters must be involved.

Inquiries will be held in a formal manner, similar to arbitration:
- Towers (one member of the staff shall present all arguments, to make things easier) present the violation, and explain how it violates Terms and Conditions.
- Recipient rebuts.
- Towers rebut.
- Recipient rebuts.
- Towers summarize.
- Recipient summarizes.
- Arbiters adjourn and write up their interpretations. Each interpretation shall contain one line which clearly states whether the author wishes to support or overturn the action of the Towers. The majority decision will be carried out.

Here's a copy of my comments that I have also posted offsite:

Hi there. Here's some brief comments and questions.

I really like the bits about what an arbiter is and what an arbiter
isn't. I also like the bits about how to include someone who has been
banned and/or suspended.

- Do you wish to pursue mediation? (If no, escalate to arbitration.)

Does this mean that arbitration can occur even if one or both of the
parties don't want it to?

- Do you wish to conduct this mediation in public, or private?

Do these same options for confidentiality exist for the Arbitration and
Official Inquiry tasks? As the goal of arbitration and official inquiry
is to reach consensus among the arbiters, are the individual
votes/statements confidential, or are they all posted? With Official
Inquiry at least, I think it might be more effective to simply post the
consensus outcome along with the reasoning behind that outcome (like the
Supreme Court statements from the majority), rather than the 7-6 vote
with all the yeas and nays listed.

Personally, my bet would be that the italics would have no problem with
the mediation and arbitration bit, but would be strongly against the
"official inquiry" bit. It comes back to the whole BBC thing -- the
italics have a mandate to uphold BBC policy, and do not have the
authority to delegate that responsibility. This would be, in essence,
asking them to stand trial for how they do their jobs. Not exactly
something I can see anyone getting real excited about, unless they
thought they would be getting something out of it in return.

Just my 2 cents.
Mikey

Hi Mikey.

"Does this mean that arbitration can occur even if one or both of the
parties don't want it to? " - Yes, in some cases, which can be noted from the section on how Arbitration begins.

- If the Towers have requested they seek mediation, and they say no, then it would move to arbitration... the idea being that if the Towers have seen the need, then it is already out of hand, and needs to stop. If one or both refuses mediation, then automatic escalation to arbitration sounds to me like the only possible course.

- If a single researcher makes the complaint, and the other refuses, then mediation cannot work, so the only options are dismissal or arbitration. Perhaps something should be built in to allow the arbiter to dismiss the case at this point, if the complaint appears to be very nitpicky and minor?

- If both researchers bring the complaint (I'll change the language on this to "dispute" and "disputants", per some good feedback via email), then both have already agreed to involve the arbiters, but one or both may have already chosen to go straight to arbitration (a good idea in cases where the damage has been done to the point that they feel they can no longer speak to each other, much less come to an accomodation). If the one wanted to pursue mediation, but the other wants arbitration, then mediation is doomed from the start. Mediation cannot be forced on anyone who does not want it.

- If an arbiter proposes mediation, because a third party (non-Italic) recommended it, and either or both refuse, then there is no mediation, and thus no arbitration.

Confidentiality: I think it's important for Arbitration and Official Inquiries to be held publicly, in order to maintain accountability among the Arbiters. True justice can only take place in the full view of everyone, so they know there is nothing to hide, and they can learn to trust the process. So the answer, at this time, is no.

Yea-Nay: I think it would be more instructive to have each yea discuss *why* they voted that way, and likewise, each nay. Not everyone is likely to choose their position for the same reasons. Let's see what others think on this one.

I'm trying to communicate that the Towers *will* get something out of it, but we're talking about intangibles that are difficult to quantify... time, respect, increased productivity among the community (I know I've got some duties that are seriously behind while I work on this)...

Good draft - I like it. Make it into an entry, I would

I think arbitration should be agreed to by both sides or imposed by the italics. Otherwise people will simply refuse to take part or post in their defence or anything, and the thing will become a farce.

The worst case is that it degenerates in the same way that things currently do, and the italics will step in in the same way that they currently do. If this is a problem in practice, then the rules can be changed after the scheme is established and seen to work.

2 things: I'm still unsure of the purpose of limiting the number of arbiters to 13, or requiring that there be at least 13. Also, in official inquiries, why no questions, when they are allowed in normal arbitration?

I'd quite like to be an arbiter, but I suspect I fall at the "ability to remain impartial and professional in contentious matters" hurdle. ho hum.

*bookmark*

*waves*

You saw my comments offsite, Colonel.

Lucinda, I don't know whether you're keeping up at The Place That Cannot Be Named. I mentioned to the Colonel there that your unofficial guide to the House Rules could be a really good complement to the Arbitration Scheme. Insofar as the arbiters exist to guarantee consistency, some record of precedent is necessary. I see your project as a sort of Talmud, or at least case law, in which all the possible playings out of the House Rules could be clarified. Is that what you had in mind?

Maybe I should be posting there instead of here, but I saw you here, and it's relevant. I would even think it should be written into the draft as one of the arbiters' tasks: to help maintain a precedent history as cases are decided and ambiguities hammered out. Or maybe that task would be vested in a separate position for someone... some kind of official h2g2 court reporter? I dunno; I'm just thinking aloud here...

Here are my comments again, CS. I still say its a fine piece of work.


I do have some questions and contentions, however:

1. I believe that an Italic - or a group of Italics - should be involved. I would say that having one member of the three member
arbitration team an Italic should provide them with the contact that they need, while keeping the proceedings in the hands of the researchers.

2. We will need to convince TPTB, and possibly the Beeb as well, to provide e-mail addresses for all of the active arbiters. (Much as they did once for ACEs.) This information needs to be made common knowledge for all researchers - perhaps on an Arbitration page? - so that they can be contacted by anyone.

The reason that I feel this must be included is that researchers need a way to contact the arbiters in the case of an Official Inquiry. Taking the obvious example, LeKZ would be unable to seek arbitration on their expulsion because they are not able to post anything on the site. While there may not be many arbitrations based on bannings, we do have to plan for the eventuality.

And for my final question:

3. Who are the voters? Are you planning on allowing the Italics to vote, or will it simply be researchers? If both groups are allowed to vote and you have a tie for the 13th arbiter that is split between someone backed by the Italics and someone backed by the researchers, which person will you choose and why? Or will there be a run-off, where the two researchers are put to a direct vote by all parties concerned?

I guess that was more than one question. However, I do think that these are all things that will need to be addressed before putting the final draft up for a vote.

G7

I have no objection to anyone linking to my unofficial guide or using it for any purpose. However, I do not desire any kind of official blessing for it, nor for it to be integrated into any kind of formal scheme. If it helps then it helps, if it does not then it does not. If the arbiters are created and deal with moderation, then I will include their decisions and rulings in my entry, naturally enough. If not, then there is no effect.

That probably comes across a little negatively, and I don't mean it to. From the point of view of the arbitration scheme, I can see that it could be handy. However I don't want my guide to be contaminated with suspicions of bias or ulterior motives. People seem quick to assume such things, sadly.

1. I think if every arbitration requires an italic to make up three then it'll be far too much of a burden on the italics' time.

2. Why not just insist that everyone who stands as an arbiter reveal their email address - either to everyone, or just to the organiser?

3. Italics are researchers too - they should have a single vote. I still reckon we should just elect everyone who gets the required approval in the yeay/nay primary step, which means that there's no danger of negative campaigning, and no problem with ties et al.

--

Another thing - perhaps everyone should be given a three month probation where they only deal with mediation, before they are allowed to get involved in arbitration?

Hi all -

FYI: I have printed out this thread as a reference, and appreciate how much work everyone is putting in on this. For those of you not in the email group: I have deferred the proceedural make-up of the proposal to those of you with greater familiarity regarding the h2g2 dymanic. (This leaves me all the shiny bits about the presentation - which is basically what my career has pretty much been all about.)

Colonel - If you see this first, please check the email, as I've sent some questions for you that I hope to hear back on before I work on the revisions in the proposal this weekend. (Primarily organizational stuff and polishing; nothing too drastic.) Thanks.

-7rob7

Thanks, Lucinda.

1. Fair enough. But don't you agree that there should be at least some involvement by the Italics? I think that its almost necessary to include them in at least some way.

2. While I certainly have no trouble posting my e-mail addy, there are others who would make good arbiters who would not be willing to do so. This is why I suggested the officially provided addys.

3. I agree that the Italics are researchers. What I have problems with is your belief that there will be no ties. Maybe I'm just not entirely understanding, but with the process written as it is, ties could still result and we need a way to break them. That was my entire point. Perhaps I didn't put it as well as I could have, but I do feel that its something we need to plan for.

I like the probation idea, by the way. Makes good sense to me for the future, although I fear that the first batch of arbiters will be thrown to the wolves, so to speak.

G7

Gw7en wrote: "While I certainly have no trouble posting my e-mail addy, there are others who would make good arbiters who would not be willing to do so. This is why I suggested the officially provided addys"

Us volunteers had h2g2 email addresses before the BBC. Given that they were abolished at that point, I'm guessing there was a good reason as to why it wasn't possible/practical/a good idea for volunteers to have official email addresses.

However, it only takes about 3 clicks to get an anonymous hotmail account, which can then be set to forward wherever you want (which is what the h2g2 email addresses did -- you couldn't "log on" to them, they were just autoforward addresses), so I really don't think this should be a problem. Anyone so paranoid that they're still uncomfortable with that might not be the best person for an arbiter, IMO.

From my reading, it seemed pretty clear that ties and whatnot would be resolved by consensus (i.e., hashing it out). I'd say this is really the only reasonable way to approach the situation, and it tends to work pretty well IRL (we do the vote then consensus if tie thing at work).


Mikey

Hi Mikey.

The ACEs' (and other volunteers') addys from pre-Rupert days were exactly the kind of thing I was refering to. I don't remember why Peta said that they weren't available anymore. Do you?

The hotmail accounts would, indeed, work. I'd suggest some kind of uniformity in addy though, just so people know what they are for. (ie - username_arbiter@hotmail or some such.) Just a thought.

In terms of the ties, I was talking more about ties in the election of arbiters, rather than in decisions. I was simply thinking that - in case there ever is one - we should formulate the procedures on how to chose which person gets appointed. I think that the best thing to do would be to have a run-off between the two, but there may be other ideas out there as well.

G7

Yahoo is more flexible than Hotmail.

You can set a Yahoo account up so that you can send and receive mail for a Yahoo account via Outlook (ie not using a browser) - I haven't managed that with Hotmail.

In fact I wrote a guide entry on just this subject, for just this purpose.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A610075

I suspect that with the right kit someone could track replies through the Pop-mail/Outlook account, so it does not garuantee anonymity, but it is a good working solution for people who are not too paranoid.

Comments on the entry welcome.

***B

Well, while I was logging in to let everybody know about Ben's new entry, she did it herself. Putting in the link from the Arb. proposal is on my list for the weekend.

[I took a look at it, Ben, and somehow it appears to me that Outlook on a Windows-based computer is different from my Outlook Express for the Mac. (I don't have any of the Outlook tabs you mention...) How could this be? Could there be some Gates-backed plot to stigmatize Mac users? Nyah...]

Have a good weekend, everyone.

-7rob7

If you can work out how to do it in your version, we should add it to the instructions, or do a separate entry. Let me know.

Have a good one.

B

Ok, everyone: the latest draft is in place, and includes big blue chunks in those places that I'm still waiting to hear from the rest of the email group regarding.

See what you think.

-7rob7