Community Comity Commission (CCC): IMPORTANT PLEASE READ

[TotallyOz]

We have banned very few people on this site. However, we do get demands from time to time by individuals to do just that. Individuals who feel they have been abused or otherwise sufficiently aggrieved, to warrant banning a member.

We as admins have to take the broad view of what is good for the community as a whole regarding contributors and personalities. We believe a broad community is the most interesting to more people. That requires tolerating different personalities.

Where to draw lines about what cannot be tolerated is a sometimes a simple question and sometimes more subtle. We draw bright lines in the Site Policy regarding personal information, stalking, and agenda prosecution. The fainter lines are more difficult to draw. Where does a thin skin or abrasive personality stop and abuse start? Where does a sometimes abrasive personality cross a line into chronic abuse, even more, abuse that warrants the death penalty? What is the overall balance of an individual's contributions versus occasional irritations generated. How easy is it to ignore a curmudgeon by walking the other side of the street or turning on the ignore button?

We as admins do not like being asked to impose a penalty on a member due to one individual's estimate of perceived infractions of etiquette and decorum, especially when there are remedies that help people avoid who they do not like. On the other hand, these individuals feel we are not listening them and their concerns and they grow frustrated. It is often the same people who request this but they have stated that others feel the same and that they fear that if they speak up, nothing will be done as the admins 'protect their favorite posters'.

As mentioned earlier, we, the Admins, feel that who is allowed to be a member and who is not, and what behavior is just too abrasive/abusive to tolerate, affect the entire community. Therefore it ought to be left to the 'participating community' to determine.

For myself, I can't find one person that is a regular poster that I would ban. However, after getting emails and PM's from long time posters questioning my ability to determine if a poster should be disciplined, I think that TY and I as admins need to step aside and let those who feel we need a new direction, make one. And, we as Admins will abide by the decision.

It is for the above circumstances and reasons that we have decided to establish a procedure whereby members can bring forth a complaint about abusive behavior by individuals in the community and whether it rises to the level that should be banned from temporary or permanent participation.

This will provide mechanism for aggrieved members to make a complaint about abusive behavior with the disposition ranging from no action warranted to permanent ban, depending on history. The Process will be called a Hearing of the Comity Commission (CC). Members of the Commission shall be forum members who meet the criteria set out below. This gives the community a say over who deserves suspension or banning. Any member who wishes another member to be suspended from posting can accomplish this IF a sufficient number of other members of our community agree.

The Penalties:

A first finding of 'Engaging in Conduct Abusive or Other Intolerable Behavior' will result in suspension of forum participation for a period of 90 days.

A second finding of 'Engaging in Conduct Abusive or Otherwise Intolerable Behavior' will result in forum membership privileges revoked permanently.

Members of the Comity Committee:

All legitimately registered members of the forum who meet ALL the following participation conditions are defacto members of the Comity Committee with voting rights:

1. active forum participants for the prior 6 months,
2. with a minimum 200 posts total on the site, and
3. with a minimum of 15 posts in the prior 6 months.

Participation of Commission Members is voluntary. One may choose to vote or not.

Establishing a Complaint

Who May Make a Complaint?

A complaint of abusive behavior can be lodged by any legitimately registered Forum Member against another Forum Member. Any member lodging a complaint is limited to one accepted complaint against the same Accused every six months.

The Admin can lodge a complaint without time limits.

Moving the Complaint to the Hearing Stage

At least two members must make a complaint against the same individual to initiate a Hearing. These 2 members may contact the Admin via PM. If only one member complains then the Complaint Process is terminated.

If two complain, then Admin shall post a Complaint Announcement Thread, announcing that a complaint has been made against a Forum Member, name given, for Abusive or Otherwise Intolerable Behavior. The complainant's screen names shall be published so that the Accused shall know his Accusers. This gives the Accused an opportunity to contact his Accusers in order to work out their differences.

An Admin initiated complaint automatically moves to the Hearing stage with the posting of a Hearing Thread. The Admin shall notify the Accused of the Complaint.


Establishing the Hearing Thread

The Hearing Process is initiated with publication of Complaint. The accused offender and the two (or more) complainants will be identified.

Each complainant, identified by his screen name, shall offer his complaint against the alleged offender. It can be long or short but must be substantiated with evidence of offense, eg. citations, references and/or examples of abusive behavior. (Presumably the stronger the case, the more likely the outcome.) Failure by either complainant to provide any substantive case will result in dismissal of the complaint and termination of the process.

Withdrawal of the Complaint by either or both of the Complainants shall cause the Hearing Process to be terminated without any action against the Accused. (At least two Accusers must participate in order to avoid actions driven by 'personality conflicts'.)

The Accused Forum Member shall be strongly encouraged to state his defense or apology/mea culpa in response to the Accusers.

Each Accuser shall be entitled to one rebuttal to the Accused's defense.

The Accuser shall be entitled to make a response to each Complainant's rebuttal.

That closes the arguments in the Hearing Proceedings. (Other discussion open to any forum member can be held in external threads subject to standard Site Policies and community civility standards.)

The Duration of the Hearing Process

The Hearing Process starts with the Publication of the Complaint Thread.

The two (or more)complainants must lay out their initial case with 24 hours of the Complaint Thread opening or it will be terminated and closed if less than two comply.

The Accused will be notified and encouraged to make a timely response.

At this point it is the responsibility of the parties to remain engaged for the submission of rebuttals and responses.

The Hearing Proceedings shall be held open for one week only. During that interval any and all defacto Comity Committee Members are encouraged to get and remain engaged and, after arguments have been presented, cast an up or down vote to affirm or deny the charge of 'Engaging Abuse or Other Intolerable Behavior'. The vote results are public and voting is public. Voter screen name shall be associated with the vote.

The Findings

The Finding for Suspension shall require a vote in the affirmative by at least 50% + 1 voting with a minimum of nine votes in the affirmative. Consequently, a minimum of 19 members must participate with at least 9 voting in the affirmative.

The Finding for Banishment shall require a vote in the affirmative of two-thirds of all voting with a minimum of twelve for Banishment.

Admins cannot vote.

[Lucky]

Occasionally, I forget that Totally Oz is a lawyer. I won't forget today!

I hope that no one gets banned and that we all treat each other with respect, even when we disagree.

[lookin]

Halfway through the Citations and References Section,

our Complainant decides it's easier to banish himself.

[Guest NCBored]

It's sad that this is perceived to be necessary, but at least it offers transparency and puts the responsibility on the membership rather than the admins.

I do wonder about the short timeframe for this:

The Duration of the Hearing Process

The Hearing Process starts with the Publication of the Complaint Thread.

The two (or more)complainants must lay out their initial case with 24 hours of the Complaint Thread opening or it will be terminated and closed if less than two comply.

I think 48 hours would be fairer, and I think complainants & accused should be notified individually when the Hearing thread is opened (especially if there's such a short window).

[Guest gcursor]

I started to read this until I got to the part about two parties have to remain engaged....and I was thinking, "What the heck? We have to marry people on here to make complaints? Where did this come from?"

and..BANISHMENT! What do you mean BANISHMENT! We aren't in ye olde England. We're not going to kick them out of the nation if they screw up. How about instead of banishment, we say that they have been voted off the island? Sounds much less harsh and more politically correct

gcursor

[MsGuy]

----
"The Finding for Suspension shall require a vote in the affirmative by at least 50% + 1 voting with a minimum of nine votes in the affirmative. Consequently, a minimum of 19 members must participate with at least 9 voting in the affirmative."

----

LOL, and what are the chances that 19 regulars will voluntarily jump into a very public brawl here on BoyToy?

Oz, you sneaky old dog, with that as the threshold criteria, we would be hard put to evict Attila the Hun. So you've effectively banned us from banning anyone while simultaneously seemingly shifting the full onerous responsibility onto the membership. Thought you'd slip that one by me, did you?

Hahahahaha...I thought you were supposed to be busy doing something important in India with the programmers? [Hmmm... I guess none of them has a cute ass...]

[AdamSmith]

LOL, and what are the chances that 19 regulars will voluntarily jump into a very public brawl here on BoyToy?

Does seem a bit much for a quorum call. After all, what's good enough for the Senate...

Of course if the new way doesn't pan out, there's always the tried and true...

[Guest NCBored]

----

"The Finding for Suspension shall require a vote in the affirmative by at least 50% + 1 voting with a minimum of nine votes in the affirmative. Consequently, a minimum of 19 members must participate with at least 9 voting in the affirmative."

----

LOL, and what are the chances that 19 regulars will voluntarily jump into a very public brawl here on BoyToy?

Oz, you sneaky old dog, with that as the threshold criteria, we would be hard put to evict Attila the Hun. So you've effectively banned us from banning anyone while simultaneously seemingly shifting the full onerous responsibility onto the membership. Thought you'd slip that one by me, did you?

Hahahahaha...I thought you were supposed to be busy doing something important in India with the programmers? [Hmmm... I guess none of them has a cute ass...]

I hadn't really thought that through. 18 people could vote for conviction, but without any 'nay' votes, that wouldn't suffice. Whereas 10 votes for conviction would be enough if there were 9 people who voted 'nay'?

[Guest hitoallusa]

Oh my Gcursor.. You are so funny.. Iol If that were the case I would make complaints everyday.. lol..

"I started to read this until I got to the part about two parties have to remain engaged....and I was thinking, "What the heck? We have to marry people on here to make complaints? Where did this come from?"

[RA1]

I think that before any action ensues there must be a 10 day cooling off period followed by or including 100 pictures of naked guys as proof of intent. Otherwise, no deal.

Best regards,

RA1

[MsGuy]

I hadn't really thought that through. 18 people could vote for conviction, but without any 'nay' votes, that wouldn't suffice. Whereas 10 votes for conviction would be enough if there were 9 people who voted 'nay'?

Our dear Mr. Oz is the master of conning folks down his yellow brick roads.

Just remember, always look behind that curtain!

[TampaYankee]

----

"The Finding for Suspension shall require a vote in the affirmative by at least 50% + 1 voting with a minimum of nine votes in the affirmative. Consequently, a minimum of 19 members must participate with at least 9 voting in the affirmative."

----

LOL, and what are the chances that 19 regulars will voluntarily jump into a very public brawl here on BoyToy?

Oz, you sneaky old dog, with that as the threshold criteria, we would be hard put to evict Attila the Hun. So you've effectively banned us from banning anyone while simultaneously seemingly shifting the full onerous responsibility onto the membership. Thought you'd slip that one by me, did you?

Hahahahaha...I thought you were supposed to be busy doing something important in India with the programmers? [Hmmm... I guess none of them has a cute ass...]

What numbers do you propose to make the process more efficacious? Keep in mind that it should not be an easy task while it must be possible to achieve for egregious cases.

[MsGuy]

What numbers do you propose to make the process more efficacious? Keep in mind that it should not be an easy task while it must be possible to achieve for egregious cases.

Hmm...

So what are you gonna do when some nasty whack-a-doodle starts high jacking threads & spouting racist non-sense but it's a slow week and you can't round up enough votes to deep 6 the guy?

Say you can email enough of us to form a quorum to vote the guy off the island, it's still a 3 or 4 day process...what do we do in the meantime?

And what the hell do we (meaning I) do when a couple of posters go to the mattresses over some nonsense, set their allies on each other and start bombarding us (meaning me) with PM's and e-mails demanding I (oops...we) join the brawl or be forever consigned to outer darkness?

Why set up a procedure in the first place that just begs to be converted into a BN style meltdown?

Personally, I liked the old benevolent dictatorship just fine, thank you very much.

Seriously, some systems just do not lend themselves to overly democratic procedures. This is Oz's site and, if he's going to have a forum, then he's just going to have to put up with some occasional kvetching by posters who have taken a dislike for each other.

Or maybe delegate the headache to you, LOL.

[TotallyOz]

Hmm...

So what are you gonna do when some nasty whack-a-doodle starts high jacking threads & spouting racist non-sense but it's a slow week and you can't round up enough votes to deep 6 the guy?

There is a simple answer to that, he will be gone. No vote needed. But, the issue is not those people that come on the site to make a mess, those are easy for us to deal with and we do. This process lined out in great detail is when we as admins do not think someone's actions are egregious enough to warrant a swift kick out of the door. In all honestly, I have seen very few posters over the years that warrant this. But, when they appear, they are shown the door by TY or myself rather quickly. This process is not for those we know should be banned, it is for those we have been asked to ban by members and often over issues that we feel do not rise to the level of banning or suspending. As I have been told in just the last 2 weeks by 3 different posters I respect that I need to ban someone, I turn to TY and just shake my head and I told him that I am at a loss as to what to do. In my opinion, if 2 members ask for a ban and 8 other members agree that someone should be banned and there are no votes to keep them, then I have really not paid attention and thus, it is best for you kind folks to teach me and mentor me and help me.

We are a community and some times we look to you for guidance. We do not wish to upset anyone or for anyone to feel we are not listening to them. It is for these reasons we want to be totally fair and above board for everyone and make sure that everyone has an opportunity to help mold the board to their liking.

[Guest lurkerspeaks]

My concerns with the system are two fold... 1), I believe in more of a three strikes system.... first offense gets a stern warning from "the parents".. second offense gets a time out (I would be more prone to one month than three).. third offense would be the ban..

and my second concern would be the part about "facing his accusers".. I believe that the persons lodging the complaints should be allowed to remain anonymous. I have seen and heard of a case where a certain poster was able to cause quite a bit of trouble (in real life) for another poster who he disagreed with. For what it's worth, that poster who reportedly caused the trouble is still around these parts. I think the public "reveal" of who is making the complaint will keep some people from stepping forward when they feel there is a problem..

Just my two cents worth.

[RA1]

I tend to agree with Lurker. I would make the stern warning via public notice so "everyone" would know what and why. Ditto the time out and banishment.

I thought I understood from the first post what Toz was getting at but I appreciate the clarification. I completely agree that extreme malefactors should be dealt with forthwith by the moderators. I am willing to be persuaded and see the results of any other form of censure.

Best regards,

RA1

[TotallyOz]

I think the public "reveal" of who is making the complaint will keep some people from stepping forward when they feel there is a problem..

If the public reveal is an issue for someone, they should not step forward. But, for total transparency, we have made this part of the process as well as the votes being publicly visible. The hope is that if a user has a problem with another user the first few days will allow them to have a discussion and resolve the conflict.

Naturally, this step should not be the first step. The first one should be if a user has an issue with someone else, they should have a private discussion with them. We are all adults here and I know when I get a PM, I always try my best to work out differences with someone that has a problem with me or something I have posted.

TY and I debated this for several weeks to try to come up with a plan that is fair to everyone involved. This is the plan we have decided on after careful deliberation.

[lookin]

If the public reveal is an issue for someone, they should not step forward. But, for total transparency, we have made this part of the process as well as the votes being publicly visible. The hope is that if a user has a problem with another user the first few days will allow them to have a discussion and resolve the conflict.

Naturally, this step should not be the first step. The first one should be if a user has an issue with someone else, they should have a private discussion with them. We are all adults here and I know when I get a PM, I always try my best to work out differences with someone that has a problem with me or something I have posted.

TY and I debated this for several weeks to try to come up with a plan that is fair to everyone involved. This is the plan we have decided on after careful deliberation.

[TampaYankee]

I believe that anonymous charges should be a nonstarter unless..... If someone has a complaint then he should be willing to stand behind it. Also, to avoid charges of a 'management fix' we have to know who is for and against censure. Else, we haven't moved the needle one iota with respect to charges of management favoritism.

An alternative process that avoids Management influence questions and does provide a measure of privacy to the parties involved is presented as food for thought.

Speaking off the cuff here, without any notice to or input from Oz, I would be willing to consider an alternative Comity Comission process. The penalties would be the same along with the time frame and seconds and notices. It would be held in camera, i.e. privately.

The Committee would be constituted by three forum members meeting all of the requirements set out in the above public process. They would run the process privately accepting complaints, notifying the Accused and hearing the complaints, response and rebuttals. They would keep Management informed from the outset and copied on all correspondence. Based on all inputs, the Commission would deliberate and deliver the finding to Management and to the Community. Management would take any action in line with the finding.

Because the decision authority is concentrated in so few hands, who is appointed would be critical to ensure that an accurate sense of the community is reflected. Management would appoint the Committee Members. They would be publicly known.

Of the three slots my choice for two of them would be lookin and MsGuy. There are a number of others who would make a fine choice for the third slot. I just haven't narrowed them down and Oz ought to have a choice too.

I repeat, this is an off-the-cuff potential alternative that could address privacy issues as well as vote critical-mass. Just food for thought. I believe the original plan is a good plan but this alternative is in the direction that addresses some of the issues brought up.. Of course, this assumes acceptable members would be willing to accept the authority and responsibility of the office.

If such a plan were to be considered seriously as an alternative then more thought would have to be given to the details.

Doing nothing will result in maintaining the status quo. If doing nothing is the consensus of the community then so be it. Let us know. We want to hear from the community about what the community wants.

P.S. Lookin and MsGuy, this is not a punishment for your comments but a statement of my respect for and faith in your fairness, even temperament and knowledge of the community and its players. I would not propose putting such authority in someone's hands as a punishment.

[TampaYankee]

I think that before any action ensues there must be a 10 day cooling off period followed by or including 100 pictures of naked guys as proof of intent. Otherwise, no deal.

Best regards,

RA1

Please believe me that a 10 day cooling off period will do nothing to remedy the piqued passions. This is based on history, and members want their complaints more fully addressed.

[lookin]

The Committee would be constituted by three forum members meeting all of the requirements set out in the above public process. They would run the process privately accepting complaints, notifying the Accused and hearing the complaints, response and rebuttals. They would keep Management informed from the outset and copied on all correspondence. Based on all inputs, the Commission would deliberate and deliver the finding to Management and to the Community. Management would take any action in line with the finding.

Because the decision authority is concentrated in so few hands, who is appointed would be critical to ensure that an accurate sense of the community is reflected. Management would appoint the Committee Members. They would be publicly known.

Of the three slots my choice for two of them would be lookin and MsGuy.

Thanks but I'd have to be crazy, or on the take.

Where do I sign up?

[AdamSmith]

Thanks but I'd have to be crazy, or on the take.

Where do I sign up?

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[MsGuy]

TY, darling, proposing moi as Lord High Executioner shows an appalling lack of judgement on your part.

OFF WITH YOUR HEADS! BOTH OF THEM!

[AdamSmith]

Would such get-up pass muster in Mississississippi?

[caeron]

Two comments:

I think 90 days for a first offense is too great. You need a more slap on the wrist "we're serious". 90 days for second, and permanent for third strike me as fine.

Second, I think it needs to be a closed process, or at least somewhat anonymized. You don't want an instance of borderline behavior to turn into an all-out forum war with people picking sides and feelings getting heated about who is supporting who.

I haven't been as engaged lately, but I think in general I've been pretty happy with the tone overall. Always a few episodes, but nothing like some other forums I've been on...