On 14/10/2007, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Thomas Dalton" wrote
That's not really the same kind of appeal.
The appeals I'm talking
about are after a committee of admins has fully explored the issue and
made a ruling.
If you're talking about some kind of lower court, then I suspect it would get that
kind of traffic; in other words ban appeals. Defining it as a committee of admins (not
therefore representatives of the community at large) suggests its natural role to be
reviewing of what individual admins get up to.
I was just expanding on Fred's idea. I suspect he suggested using
admins since it's the easiest way of ensuring a certain about of
responsibility and trustworthyness. Sure, there are non-admins that
could do the job, but how to you find them?
If we allowed admins to be a little more BOLD in their admin actions,
then ArbCom (and a possible lower court) could simply become a review
of individual admins. Rather than going to ArbCom for everything, an
admin just blocks them, and it only goes to ArbCom if another admin
unblocks (this should be how community bans work, but at the moment,
it seems they simply don't).
All the
information ArbCom would need to judge if an
appeal is warranted should already be there. Judging an appeal of a
community ban is much harder, since the information is often much
harder to find.
I question both these points.
Question whatever you like. If you're not going to supply a counter
argument, there's not a lot I can do...