A Conversation for The H2G2 Telephone Sanitizers

I like it....

Post 1

Crescent

....good idea, but it needs to be made simple, easy to implement. This is the way I would do it.....


MEDIATORS
Volunteer group called the Mediators.

Any peeps in good standing (ie here for 9 months, or better yet a year, with Edited Entries, and regular postings) can volunteer, TPTB choose the Mediators from the volunteers (at least the first generation - after that, then they can choose their own members).

Say 20 people to start with. Going up to 40 eventually?

These are then called on by Researchers to mediate disputes between Researchers.

They have no powers to remove anyone from anything.

Only interfere when asked to do so, by one of the Researchers in the fray.

One mediator per dispute?

HOW THEY MEDIATE
Online, in the relevant forum.


ARBITERS
In cases where Researchers feel unfairly treated by TPTB then Arbiters are chosen from the pool of Mediators (this will mainly occur after TPTB actually use one of their powers).

Choose your quorum size (say 7)

Mediators vote in 6, the final person is an Italic.

Once the dispute is over the Arbiters return to Mediator status.

They Arbiters have no powers themselves, but recommend actions for TPTB.

HOW THEY ARBITRATE
A private email group, where they discuss, and can invite peeps in to give their side. The US court structure sounds ideal.

Once dispute settled, all the emails are put into an Entry, and a summary attached.


NOTES
Even then there may be some cases where it will be impossible to stop someone being exiled. If an order came down from Aunty Beeb, or her lawyers, then no matter what is said, it will happen.

They get same stuff as the rest of the volunteer groups.

The Italics need to be involved all through the process, their needs to be official endorsement if the Arbiters decision is going to carry any weight. Also they will be able to advise what is and what isn't possible.

It would be good to get the whole population involved with selection of Mediators, but it is too easy to rig online voting at the mo'.




Hmmmm, just some ideas thrown together. Hope I did what I set out, and kept it simple. Well, that is my £0.02, let me know what you think (I have never done anything like this before, so all welcome smiley - smiley) until later....
BCNU - Crescent


I like it....

Post 2

7rob7: Give Me Love (Give Me Peace On Earth)

Thanks, Crescent -

This is exactly the kind of input we're looking for. Most, if not all, of your thoughts are under discussion and being addressed by our little email committee. Keep an eye out for the "community-ready" edition coming here soon!

Thanks.

-7rob7


I like it....

Post 3

Crescent

Cool smiley - smiley I will keep an eye out smiley - smiley Until later....
BCNU - Crescent


I like it....

Post 4

7rob7: Give Me Love (Give Me Peace On Earth)

Latest version installed. You heard it here first! Woo!


I like it....

Post 5

Crescent

Kick ass smiley - smiley The only fly is the way the selection of the Arbiters. The second option will be impossible to do. There is no way to enforce a one person, one vote system here, for a community wide vote. I could have five personas here, or 25. Too easy to rig. The first option does not mention how the first generation (needed to vote the peeps in) will come about, and there should not be an unlimited amount of Arbiters. There will have to be co-ordination with the italics, and too many peeps would become very unwieldy, very fast. Hmmmm, yet again I can only offer the way I would probably do it, or maybe some variations on it.

Limited number of Arbiters (final number to be sorted and can be increased if needs be onsite, for here call it n). Any researcher that has been here long enough, and regularly participated onsite can volunteer. n/2 shall be chosen as first generation, say by discussion between the peeps here and the italics. Or maybe n/4 chosen by peeps here, and the other n/4 chosen by italics. The final n/2 shall then be discused and voted on by the first generation. Italics have veto. The Advantages are made plain, and do not worry about the disadvantages. There are always more volunteers, and turn over is relativly slow in the volunteer groups, there will be no trouble with either replacing, or keeping peeps, there isn't in any of the other volunteer groups.

Well, my £0.02 smiley - smiley Let me know what you think, until later....
BCNU - Crescent


I like it....

Post 6

7rob7: Give Me Love (Give Me Peace On Earth)

Ok then; question. If I had 5 (or 25) personas here, wouldn't that mean 5 (or 25) email addresses? Would checking that be a method of eliminating double-voting? (I know that getting that many email accounts scattered about is not a hard thing to do, but I would think it would be an awfully cumbersome way to stuff a ballot box to any significant effect.)

(An earlier version of the proposal suggested that the first generation of Arbiters would essentially be picked by the Italics from a pool of interested volunteers who met the qualifications; which would by definition include Community approval.)

This is one of the last couple of things we're specfically thrashing out in the email group. The consensus is that the Community should have the right to pick the Arbiters, and an election is the method we're working with now - being very aware of the same problems you mention.

I afraid I can't quite get the difference between your "n/2" - "n/4" designations. Sorry if I'm being slow.

Any further ideas (and corrections) are welcome and encouraged. Thank you.

-7rob7


I like it....

Post 7

Martin Harper

Crescent - the problem with your n/4 designation is that it brings in an adversarial system right from the start, and there could well be a gulf between researcher-nominated people and italic-nominated people. It seems to me that it would be better to ensure that *all* arbiters are approved by *both* the community *and* the italics - because that would attract the kind of people, with a wide base of support, that we are after.

imo, of course


I like it....

Post 8

Crescent

Every account here has to have a different email address (I think), and having 25 different emails to check would be cumbersome, but not impossible. The last voting experience on h2g2 (that I recall, so there has probably been a few others smiley - winkeye) was the presedential elections. There were 100 votes, or thereabouts, cast. Double the number of votes and 25 is still 1/8 of the vote, a powerful block, even tripled and it is still 1/16 of it. Two or three people doing that could trash the election quite easily smiley - sadface

I suppose that if only peeps with an Edited Guide Entry to their name could vote it would cut out an awful lot of the duplication possible. The community really should get a say in who is chosen, even though it would still be unwieldy, and slow, to get up and running.

A quicker solution may be that the peeps here, and the italics together choose n/2 for the trial period, after which it could be voted on by the community, or those Arbiters then choose the rest from the volunteers. This should, hopefully, get rid of the conflict that the n/4 would bring. Just another £0.02 smiley - smiley

I am not sure this is what you mean 7R7, but I think this is what you want. If you have a set number of Arbiters, a number called n, then n/2 is half of them, n/4 is a quarter.

Hope this helps, let me know how it goes smiley - smiley Until later....
BCNU - Crescent


I like it....

Post 9

Prez HS (All seems relatively quiet here)

Lucinda's last point is crucial. The typical charataristic of any arbitrating role is that the person filling it is supported by all parties to the dispute.

yo, bookmarking as well btw. smiley - smiley


I like it....

Post 10

RedFish ><>

It would be theoretically possible to create a voting system whereby each person only got 1 vote... possibly by sing the IP number of the user, but it would be very complicated and time consuiming to set up


I like it....

Post 11

Martin Harper

I like a requirement of one edited entry, which I think would solve most of it. To be honest, I can't imagine anyone trying to rig the election of this group - let's keep the paranoia at a minimum, eh?


I like it....

Post 12

RedFish ><>

i agree. if on the offchance someone unsuitable gets chosen, then they can be removed. simple.


I like it....

Post 13

Martin Harper

or the italics will veto them before they even start...


I like it....

Post 14

RedFish ><>

exactly.


I like it....

Post 15

Tube - the being being back for the time being

Wake-up call: A694118
(Thanks Rob! smiley - ok)


Key: Complain about this post