Erik Moeller wrote:
Lee-
We can't decide whether somebody is a cadidate for a ban unless somebody asks us to decide it, you know.
No. You only accept cases for arbitration unless Jimbo explicitly refers them to you. This should be changed immediately. Jimbo is not involved enough in the day-to-day workings of the community to make these referral decisions.
How fast can you fix that? If we are talking about weeks rather than days it's time to return to vigilantism.
From my understanding we're essentially at a "good enough" working draft of policies, which should be available in short order. I believe the new procedure will be essentially "ask for arbitration, and if 4 members of the committee agree, the case is heard". There's more explained in the policy, which I don't think has been posted yet (unless I just can't find it), but the gist of it that normally only cases that have had some attempt to mediate will be heard, but that's decided on a case-by-case basis (we're not going to force people to go through mediation that's obviously pointless from the start, because that just wastes the mediation committee's time, and turns them into a waypoint on the road to banning, while they're supposed to be a problem-resolution committee that makes bans unnecessary).
-Mark