--- "James D. Forrester" james@jdforrester.org wrote:
BTW, I'm troubled by your suggestion that we are harsh. This suggests, amongst other points, two things: firstly, that we're here to meet out justice, and secondly that we're here to do so fairly. Neither of these are true. The Committee is charged with maintaining the project and protecting it from disruption with the means at its disposal. We are not, have never been, and will never be here to punish people for things they do on the wiki. Instead, we look at things from the perspective of what is best for the project.
Well, this is all nice and good, but the "whatever's best for the project" angle doesnt preclude the basic notion that Arbcom is a service which implies a due process, and that both the review and process models are best served if they have at least some resemblance to concepts of justice or fairness (at least remotely).
The Arbcom was formed not to simply be an extension of rule-by-decree, but as an institution of review by peers for peers. The monarchial model is a double edged sword: fast executive power are offset by an excessive burden of duty-and-blame, which in the end winds up equating to sluggish non-responsiveness to bottom-up community needs. BTW, I find it troubling that you would take a criticism suggesting harshness as "troubling." Can't take a criticism?
I appreciate the care put into your response (not a screed at all) but IMHO, saying a judgement cant possibly be "harsh" because the process 'isnt based on fairness at all to begin with,' is a bit counterintelligent. Even war criminals claim they were 'just doing their job.' Not that this is the same thing at all, but that seems to be the basic logic involved.
SV "He thinks the carpet-pissers did it?"
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail