Request for comment: complaints process (and the Illiterati)
Hi all,
As we are still some way from final deployment, I would like to request community feedback regarding the complaints and reporting system - particularly the Illiterati.
Note, complaints in this case are strictly related to things that break the code of conduct and the terms and conditions of use (see here http://archive.skyehawke.com/info.php). This includes such things as plagiarism but also covers real world crimes such as pedophilia, discrimination and incitement to bigotry. It was this particular portion that caused the kerfuffle, a whole lot of work and the entire complaints process to be put into place.
For those of you who weren't here for the kerfuffle, the Illiterati (which, silly name) is a group comprised of three account holders (i.e. non administrative staff and thus considered to be neutral) in good stead (i.e. widely considered to be level headed and fair) who would be in charge of investigating complaints made against any piece of fiction or non fiction in the archive. They would discuss the complaint, decide if it had merit (i.e. proof) and put forward a 'ruling' (i.e. does the complaint have merit, if so what should be done - what does the author say, what does the complainant say, and what should now be done).
Note, in the entirety of the archive's existence, there has been two complaints - one of which was withdrawn as a misunderstanding and the second which was a test case. So, this has pretty much been a non issue.
That being said, despite this being a very, very rarely used function of the site, we have to:
1) follow the law (regardless of what we think of it - civil disobedience is one thing, criminal disobedience is another)
2) provide an avenue for users to have their legitimate, valid complaints heard and answered (and dealt with)
So even though this process has been used twice, there still needs to be a complaints process in place and one that is independent of administrators.
So, that being said, I would like to request discussion from the community regarding the complaints procedure. Should we keep it as it is - and if so, what process should be used to find three account holders to act as the Illiterati, should there be a vote (popularity contest), should people nominate others or themselves (possibly a popularity contest), should there be a list of volunteers that are vetted then three are programmatically randomly picked?
Or should we change the complaints process completely? And if so what should that complaints process be? (The answer to this, by the way, is not 'remove it completely' because as little used as this function is, not having one has, historically, lead to abuse of power or privilege).
So please, come forward with suggestions and comments. This, obviously, isn't going to produce the solution - but a start would be good.
As we are still some way from final deployment, I would like to request community feedback regarding the complaints and reporting system - particularly the Illiterati.
Note, complaints in this case are strictly related to things that break the code of conduct and the terms and conditions of use (see here http://archive.skyehawke.com/info.php). This includes such things as plagiarism but also covers real world crimes such as pedophilia, discrimination and incitement to bigotry. It was this particular portion that caused the kerfuffle, a whole lot of work and the entire complaints process to be put into place.
For those of you who weren't here for the kerfuffle, the Illiterati (which, silly name) is a group comprised of three account holders (i.e. non administrative staff and thus considered to be neutral) in good stead (i.e. widely considered to be level headed and fair) who would be in charge of investigating complaints made against any piece of fiction or non fiction in the archive. They would discuss the complaint, decide if it had merit (i.e. proof) and put forward a 'ruling' (i.e. does the complaint have merit, if so what should be done - what does the author say, what does the complainant say, and what should now be done).
Note, in the entirety of the archive's existence, there has been two complaints - one of which was withdrawn as a misunderstanding and the second which was a test case. So, this has pretty much been a non issue.
That being said, despite this being a very, very rarely used function of the site, we have to:
1) follow the law (regardless of what we think of it - civil disobedience is one thing, criminal disobedience is another)
2) provide an avenue for users to have their legitimate, valid complaints heard and answered (and dealt with)
So even though this process has been used twice, there still needs to be a complaints process in place and one that is independent of administrators.
So, that being said, I would like to request discussion from the community regarding the complaints procedure. Should we keep it as it is - and if so, what process should be used to find three account holders to act as the Illiterati, should there be a vote (popularity contest), should people nominate others or themselves (possibly a popularity contest), should there be a list of volunteers that are vetted then three are programmatically randomly picked?
Or should we change the complaints process completely? And if so what should that complaints process be? (The answer to this, by the way, is not 'remove it completely' because as little used as this function is, not having one has, historically, lead to abuse of power or privilege).
So please, come forward with suggestions and comments. This, obviously, isn't going to produce the solution - but a start would be good.