Presumably 99% of disputes can be resolved without needing to go that far, but everybody in a dispute has rights and it is important that mechanisms are in place to ensure these are respected - especially if ET is to grow bigger and more diverse and less of a cosy club where everyone (almost) knows each other.
At a minimum I would suggest that a front pager not involved in the dispute should be asked to arbitrate/mediate, and it should be clear that s/he is there not as a representative of frontpagers in general, but as an independent adjudicator. Some one accused of infringing the rules could also be given the right to request that a front pager of their choice act as their advocate/defense counsel. The process of establishing the facts of what happened should come before sentence is passed etc., and it should be clear who is responsible for making the final decision as to what the appropriate sanction might be.
Lets face it: Rows are inevitable amongst any spirited, committed, and opinionated group of people and the internet can be a very nasty place. Generally speaking a very good job is being done here of keeping things civil, and front pagers have enough to be doing without getting dragged into personalised disputes.
Due process is about de-persoanlising, and de-emotionalising a row, about diffusing it before things are done and said which make matters worse. If the process is good then everybody can get on with their business and move on. If it is bad, disputes simmer, bad feelings linger, and people leave.
ET should be trying to set an example of how disputes can and should be resolved in the public space as well. The more clearly outlined rules of engagement as written by DoDo are a good start. metavision:
And definitely, infinite patience, objectivity, wisdom, absolute fairness, 20/20 foresight,...
In my experience voluntary organisations are the worst for disputes which seem to come out of nowhere, and often, on closer examination turn out to have been of very little substance and a very large amount of misunderstanding and mishandling along the way. A short statement of user rights, as well as responsibilities may be the best way of codifying this.
E.g. A user accused of infringing the rules has a right to their good name, the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, to be represented by an advocate of their choice, and to a clear and transparent process as to how any adjudication is arrived at.
Every employer has to abide by similar principles and show they have appropriate policies and processes in place, and the law is no less onerous on voluntary organisations. If ET becomes a very influential body the day may come when very unsympathetic people may try to sabotage it - and with threats of legal injunctions etc. if their "rights" have been violated. I have been there with a voluntary organisation, and it is not a pretty place to be. If the matter does come to court the original rights and wrongs often become incidental and it is all about whether due process and natural justice was observed.
I sincerely hope ET never gets into that sort of bother, but a very good first line of defense is to be able to demonstrate that you have a transparent and fair internal dispute resolution in place. Lest anyone here think this is a way over the top let me assure you that it can be very simple to implement and can save you a whole lot of trouble in the long run. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
One could, of course, demand that one of the demanded two FPs who are for a sanction is not involved in the dispute. That would be a fairly simple criterion, and not too bureaucratic either.
- Jake Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam
