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

As I see it, for simple flamings, the ACEs are charged with trying to calm down and resolve situations. This is particularly demonstrated by the Tuesday, September 11th Talking Point which was dealt with well overall.

Why a mass community vote for the Arbiters? Surely this would purely result in the Researchers who have made friends with those concerned with the idea getting appointed? Maybe a poll on the h2g2 volunteer Y!Groups would be more appropriate, as it would involve members of the community who we know to be reasonably decent. Also, there wouldn't be the same possibility of vote-rigging this way (ie signing up especially to vote).

Thirdly, why nine months or pre-BBC? I was around pre-BBC but forgot who I was, so returned 6 or 7 months ago as a newbie, learning from scratch. Now, I am an ACE, Scout, Sub and Guru and do my best to be friendly and nice at all times. I agree perhaps that the italics should not be the only ones to appoint people, but they're nice people and I don't see what you exactly have against them. The closure of the moderation helpdesk was perhaps a bit off, though. Moderators do make mistakes, mainly becuase they aren't always in tune with the community and have no business with contextual discretion. An arbiter should be able to help out Peta and Abi etc. with moderation queries, surely?

I like the idea in general, and feel that it's something I can see my self doing. If done tactfully, it wouldn't damage a Researcher, and there's no reason why an Arbiter need choose a side, he/she could simply take a 'give-a-little, both of you' angle on it.

I'm not sure what you mean about the 'liaison with the italics' bit. Does it mean that because my other volunteer schemes involve talking to the nice people at the Towers excluide me as a potential Arbiter? I hope not - why should welcoming people or gettig involved in Peer Review at an official level mean that I'm in any less of a position to be a good Arbiter? And what's to stop me using another U for my Arbitration if it is deemed necessary?

Also, be aware of the danger that Arbiters are seen as the police force of h2g2. This is what happened to the moderators, and menat that they couldn't show their face on h2g2, even if they wanted to. Their powers should be adequate, but not excessive, and open for criticism. Maybe a friendlier name, that gives more of a 'helping' feel rather than the 'break it up' feel of 'arbiter?

Hope these points give people a little food for thought. Feel free to agree, or to disagree (nicely)!

Whoami?

My comments...
Why a mass community vote for the Arbiters? - The idea was to have the Arbiters as a service approved of by the community and not just something established from above. And the system should be in the open as much as possible. So a non-public voting offside is not intended. The Arbiters are s'posed to be trusted by all researchers and it would help to have the researchers having a say in who gets appointed. (and we consider all researchers to be reasonably decent )

And vote-rigging would mean that one goes and acts as an "active and visible participant in the Community for a minimum of three months" just for one extra vote. So people just signing up to vote seems unlikely to succeed.

"Thirdly, why nine months or pre-BBC?" Nine months, six months ... we're not really fussed about the exact time span. This is to make sure that community experienced and tested researchedrs only get in the Arbiter position. Nine month sounded ok to us.

I/we have nothing against the Italics, who said that? ()

Technically, an Arbiter may be used in Italic - User disputes over moderation issues. But as I understood the Italics they would not like the Arbiters to dig into that. The Arbiter's main goal is to de-fuse disputes between users.

"I'm not sure what you mean about the 'liaison with the italics' bit. Does it mean that because my other volunteer schemes involve talking to the nice people at the Towers excluide me as a potential Arbiter?" No. That is to say that the Arbiters are to be independent, that they are not bound by the PTB telling them to swing a case a certain way and suchlike. Just like a RL judge is not to be bound by anything but the law. And you are free to hold as many positions in volunteer schemes as you like.

Arbiters seen as police force: The idea is that arbiters
a) are re-active (as opposed to pro-active Mods)
b) only act if all parties want them to
c) can't bind the parties unless all parties want them to

Arbitration is voluntary, whereas Moderation is forced. No police force acts only with full assent of all involved. Thus, I see no danger there.
And they only have the powers the parties voluntarily give them. Hard to abuse that....

A friendlier name? Sure. See the "Name" thread. Suggestions welcome!



Tube
(ADT)

Whoami -

(As usual, Tube gets here "firstest with the mostest" (a reference, I dimly remember, to a particular general in the American Civil War. I only have a few things to add.)



An Arbiter would be called for if the Aces decided things were getting out of their league. Yes; the potential flames during the 9/11 discussions were kept under control admirably - thanks in no small part to the Aces, the Italics and the general overall sense of civility onsite. An Arbiter would *not* supplant this function of an Ace, but simply provide reinforcement if called on to do so.

Tube pretty much (I hope) answered your questions re: voting set-up and 'residency' requirements. We have approached the development of this proposal as if we were putting together a series of 'concept sketches' that then get turned over to the 'Architects' (Italics). Most of the specifics will probably change, as none of the ADT are privy to the inner minds of the BBC and the PTB (thank the-higher-power-of-your-choice!)

The one other thing that I wanted to add to Tube's explanation regarding your 'liaison' question was this: an Arbiter could not be asked to petition the Italics on behalf of the Community. That would also be outside the scope of their narrowly-defined duties, and we wanted to address that possible scenario upfront.

The 'police force' image is a hard bugaboo to shake, as a number of Aces have already pointed out. You're right in that a 'friendlier' name will help (hence the 'Telephone Sanitizers' alias from the beginning - still *my* favorite... but it would be). We can only hope that whatever 'final' version is presented to the community is done so in such a way as to stress the helpful co-researcher aspects as well as emphasizing the fact that the Arbiter *does not* penalize or sanction; only provide a type of 'last-resort' assistance prior to the matter being turned over to the Italics.

Hope this covers things. The proposal - all eleventy-zillion wrds of it - is currently being reviewed by the Italics in the "Are you ready for our comments?" thread. Feel free to check in there as well.

Thanks again for your interest and comments.



-7rob7

Ah. I understand more completely now. What the Arbiters do is they are around to be called upon if needed, rather than the ACE-style popping along to have a look round, dealing with anything that they meet along the way.

Whoami?

Exactamundo.

Thanks for the help, people. Now back to that experiment of mine...

Whoami?

Wake-up call: A694118
(Thanks Rob! )