On Dec 28, 2007 9:49 AM, Majdan, Nik nmajdan@aplmc.com wrote:
I completely understand that ArbCom wasn't going to make a content decision (although, I still kinda question why not. If ArbCom is our equivalent of the Supreme Court, they should have this jurisdiction.).
Well, we're not (although some parallels have been drawn). We're essentially the replacement for Jimbo's former role as the final arbiter of user conduct, especially when it comes to blocking/banning.
Speaking personally, I feel we are not equipped to make such decisions, both in terms of manpower and in terms of expertise.
I don't even know what I expected ArbCom to do, it just seems like a lot of wasted time for an impotent ruling.
While I obviously can't breach the confidentiality of our internal deliberations nor speak for other arbitrators, if an arbcom decision isn't as decisive as hoped, good odds are that either
a) We believe we do not have jurisdiction over the issue (either unanimously or by majority), or b) No decisive action had a majority (i.e. we disagreed too much to come to a resolution), or c) We had absolutely no idea what to do about the situation.
Arbcom is a committee, and committees by their very nature are not very decisive bodies, since a majority of the committee has to agree on any decision made. Furthermore, even though our rules say that a bare majority is sufficient, in practise we have preferred rough consensus over majority; very few rulings have been reached that are strongly opposed by a substantial minority of the arbcom.
I hope this helps a little,
-Matt