2024-AT-11 Staff and Starmaker764 overturned

Silverias said:
What about the Arbitrator who has to evaluate a single case and then make a judgement without those mitigating factors?

I'm not claiming it was a moral failing that this infraction "got this far", but I still don't think it should have.

I'm quite sure everyone in the process was acting in good faith, but (And this is only my opinion) something went wrong along the way because this just...doesn't rise to any standard of infraction I could justify in my mind.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Fey'lya said:
I can't speak for anyone else but for me it was a combination of "very busy at work" and "don't feel comfortable handling infractions in the Israel thread". The rules in there are complex.

Note that it was apparently only open and shut at the Tribunal level, the Arb disagreed and from where I was sitting it could have gone either way.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Fey'lya took the words out of my mouth, except instead of "very busy at work" replace "fighting mysterious illness." I've dipped my toe in to a number of Israel-Palestine thread appeals over the last few months and I've never felt great about it or like I've done a good job.

(The illness is now no longer a mystery! That's the good news. The bad news is that the solution to the mystery was "you have pneumonia, and it gets worse." Not a great sign when your breathing is bad enough that you can hear the trademark pneumonia crackles without a stethoscope.)
 
Last edited:
Omicron said:
I... don't think so? Like, they literally have a Staff post in the thread saying "Several users have been infracted," this isn't hidden information.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Also,

The arbitrator and infracting staff member - $arbname and - $modname are entitled to participate in the discussion, as are the appellant and their advocate as they chose to engage the services of one.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

is part of the Tribunal opener boilerplate.

E: jeez, stay safe and get well soon picklepikkl
 
hghwolf said:
Honestly, just a blanket ban on changing the rule under which a post is infracted would do entirely fine to excise this problem without adding overhead to the general functioning of the forum.

It might even improve moderation practices.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
hghwolf said:
I mean, if it's blatant then the moderator can just... infract also under that rule to begin with ?

I feel that it's fundamentally unfair to expect the council - or the arbitration ! - to do the moderations job for it and possibly even catch flak for that.

Arbitration is user recourse against infractions made in error by the attending moderator. The council tribunal is the control valve for that process. These are good systems to have because no moderator or arbitrator, no matter how well intentioned, is unbiased and flawless, especially in the slightly nebulous framework of SVs rules, and they will have bad days, or bad months, and they'll infract people in error. Neither should exist to, or attempt to, cover for moderators erring by being too lenient; their purpose should be the exact opposite of that. If their job was to moderate SV they'd be moderators.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We can't keep agreeing like this if you're going to be my nemesis, hghwolf, and if not you, then who? It's just bad form to keep going on this way...

>:cX
 
Rhymes said:
Really bad posts getting let go because the moderator somehow fucked it? Not so much.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The argument that we don't have to care about things like due process the way the real justice system does because no-one's being put in prison or executed cuts both ways, tbh. No-one is actually seriously harmed by allowing a bad poster to get a few more second chances than they're supposed to.
 
In general I think the "The rules changed at arbitration stage" is a mitigation but not an absolute one. It doesn't get you off if you did something sufficiently egarious, but given this was pretty marginal under either rule 4 or rule 2, It was definately a factor for an overturn.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Back
Top