I do think there can be an inherent bias towards inaction when you lump votes of abstention in the "do nothing" camp. Simply put, the Boarders in question are making it clear that they do not want to vote on the issue, and as such I support Phobos' decision to have them removed from the pool entirely.

So, there's a few things that we probably should decide on when it comes to bans.

First is the voting structure. There's been several proposals for that, and here's one more. First, to ban, you need a large percentage (2/3rds at least) of the people voting to vote yes.

Second, you need a quorum of Boarders to actually cast a (non-abstention) vote. I'm still fuzzy on what a quorum looks like. Maybe, say, a bit less than half of the people who've posted {in the last week, on the front page, some other such thing}. The point of this requirement is to stop a small group pushing a ban through (not that I think anyone would do that) while people aren't looking.

Third, like Phobos said, the vote closes some time (I like a day or two) after the last vote is cast.

I also agree that the person that's being voted on gets to state their case.

Then, there's the issue of how long we ban for, which is probably a case-by-case thing. Have we ever actually permabanned someone? I don't remember.

And then there's the question of what warrants a ban in the first place. I think the bans we've issued fall into two categories: persistent bad behavior after multiple polite explanations and such things, or doing something that's so out of line that you get shown the door. We might want to figure out what the consensus ban threshold actually is, but I don't know if this thread is the right place for it.

- Tomash

An IP ban, possibly? Simply shunning whoever it was that violated the Constitution? Disallowing them from getting Permission, or redacting Permission if they have it? I assume this has already been discussed, but I want to know how this is going to work.

I didn't get to follow most of the thread, but from what I did catch, I'm against the ban at this time in principle.

-----------------------

The accused should get a chance to explain themselves. It is in the constitution that people get a chance to explain themselves.

I did catch in the other thread that someone said something about not caring about what they had to say because they'd side with their friend.

----------------------

The biggest reason why I'm against banning right away is because it was done right away. The vote for banning shouldn't start for at least 48 hours so that people have a chance to cool off.

----------------------

DJ has some points. The language is a bit strong, but I've encountered negativity here. Also, when discussing the permission process, I think someone said something like 'why do you care, it doesn't apply to you.'

On one hand, other people might bring up something you have missed, causing you to see things in a new light. On the other, it makes tallying an even more confusing thing to do, and it can be said that if you are not decisive enough, you should abstain.

Thoughts? Ideas? Anything else?

While I agree with Phobos that the person being discussed probably shouldn't have a vote, why not include a provision for them getting to state their case? Obviously they would vote not to be banned, but that might be a good compromise as having say goes - since people making the proposal have to outline a case for a ban, it seems right that the person being discussed be able to present their own case for not being banned. But maybe I'm babbling pointlessly.

On Abstain votes, I believe they should be treated as neither for or against an action. Treat them as a separate entity all together.

The other thing I wanted to mention is on whether the accused should have a say. I believe they should be allowed to vote for the main reason that it will be an offset vote. The person initiating the ban will always vote in favor of the ban, or else they would not have brought it up in the first place. To explain the problem with that here is an example. A ban motion has been made. The person initiating it obviously votes yes. So for some strange reason no one else responds or they all abstain and we get 100% in favor 0 against and because that would satisfy the 60% as is currently required the ban would pass. This to me seems like an unfair result. So for that reason alone I think the person should be allowed to vote.

Alternatively I would suggest that the person proposing the ban is unallowed to vote for the same reasons. Or abstentions count neither for or against the ban, but totals to the amount of votes. For example 10 people vote so 6 would need to vote in favor for the ban. Of the 10 voters 4 abstain. That means the yeses would need all six votes to carry the motion. I am just looking at it as a way to protect the accused. These are just my initial brainstorming on the idea.

I also think there should be some number of minimum votes beyond percentages. For many of the reasons I mentioned above, I do not want to see some fluke were only five people vote and that allows a ban of a community member. I do not know what a good number would be, but I think there should be some number required.

As an example I would say that in order for a ban to occur one needs 60% of the vote with at least 10 people saying voting in favor. (Someone else would need to work out the actual minimum number, but you get the idea.)

I also would not be opposed to requiring 2/3 of a majority vote (66%) in order for the percentages to be met. Banning is the most serious punishment that can be handed out here and the requirements should reflect that.

So in short I say a minimum of 60% (though I prefer 66% at a minimum) of non-abstaining votes (if both the person proposing the ban and the subject of the ban votes are not counted or are allowed to offset each other) with at least X number of people voting in favor.

I do think abstentions do have an important role to play. They can help foster debate on whether the subject of the ban is actually deserving of it. And it allows people some time to gain new information and alter their decisions.

Now that I think about it more as I've been writing this, I am actually in favor a more formal process altogether. Not only discussion between the voters, but also a chance for the accused to be able to put on some kind of a defense. This really is a severe sanction and should be treated as such. Though I would allow less process for temporary bans.

So my process proposals:

3 months or less: No vote from the ban request or subject. Minor debate between voting parties, 50% +1 person. This is temporary and does not need quite as much protections

Between 3 and 6 months just change the percentage to 60% +1, minimum number of votes for (12 for a placeholder). In other words 60% of the voters plus one person must vote for with a minimum of 12 votes in favor, but with the +1 requirement it would amount to 13 votes for (the numbers can be adjusted, but you get the picture)

Up to a year: 66% of all voters. Minimum of some number of votes greater than the previous grade. (so 15 for now as an example). Vigorous debate between voters. Some kind of opportunity for the subject to be heard. In other words not only would you need 66% of all votes to be in favor, and at least 15 people to say yes. In other words even if you meet the percentage requirement if there are not 15 yeses, then I think there should be no ban at this level.

Permanent Ban: 75% Of all voters. Minimum of 20+ in favor of the ban. An absolute requirement of the person proposing the ban to state clearly and concisely the behaviors that in their mind warrant banning, preferably with chat logs and citations to the provisions of the Constitution that have been violated. Further the accused would be able to give his or her reasons why they do not believe they should be banned providing any evidence they believe in their favor (including their own chat logs if so appropriate). And any person who votes with a (nm) message should first be asked a follow up why (preferably with an answer beyond I just do not like them), and if no follow up is given said vote should be counted as an abstention until and unless some reason is given.

That's how I would set up the process or something similar.

Lets say 100 people vote and 50 are in favour of an unqualified ban and 25 say they want a temporary ban of one year. We have the votes need to go through with a ban, but should it be permanent or temporary?
Or should the person who proposes the ban simply state whether they mean a permanent or temporary ban?

I agree that abstain shouldn't be anything other than a non-vote (though honestly the best way to abstain and prevent getting lumped in is most likely to just not post in the ban thread at all.)

I also believe the person getting discussed shouldn't have a say in whether or not they get banned. As for how much of the vote is enough, I'd say give it a few days to collect votes, then if you have a 60% or more majority that's probably enough.

(Also yeas I am aware I said I would be taking some time off. I have another post to make before I go, and the wording is being difficult, so I figured I'd take a break and see what's up.)

I can't see how my decision was counted as "I'm against it". If I wanted it to be that way, I would've simply vote NO. Then why, you may ask, have I decided to abstain? The reason is simple, and I think all others who had abstained will agree:

I have no opinion on the matter.

It's equal to me not replying to the thread at all. If I didn't, would you still count me as a 'no', hS?

I've had an opportunity to observe parliamentary works from up close. And, referencing [this] post, not all voting revolved around "changing A to B", but also "should X be implemented", and in both cases there were abstain votes.

My proposition is simple, and I think that's what Phobos stated only explained more simply for uneducated folk such as myself:

We vote on X (be it a ban, a change, etc.). There are those who vote YES, there are those who vote NO, there are those who ABSTAIN. At the end of the voting - that's a separate discussion - we look at the tally. Example:

YES - 10
ABSTAINED - 17
NO - 5

In this case, the YES voters win.

Also, I may be wrong about this, but would a 60% majority really be necessary? By definition, a majority is the opinion of the bigger group of people. Even a YES-NO ratio of 10-9 would be in favour of YES voters.

I don't think abstentions should be counted one way or the other. Not in the totals to determine a majority; not as defaulting to whatever is the "default", whatever that is. (Surely the default for dealing with a disruptive person should be "ban"? But I digress.) Abstaining formally should get the same result as abstaining informally (that is, not posting) - your vote doesn't count at all.

The person under threat of banning also shouldn't get a say; they're effectively suspended while the vote takes place. Of course, they can make posts defending themselves and trying to convince people to vote for them, but their opinion shouldn't be treated as a vote.

To counter the issue brought up below, about a 10-2 vote out of 100 people leading to a ban: we should require some sort of quorum for this sort of vote. Say, 33% of the people who have posted on the front page need to vote (and not abstain). Then whatever majority we decide is necessary for a ban to go through. No quorum = no decision.

I've been thinking about this since it blew up a little bit ago. I like the fact that the way abstentions were counted by hS skewed the vote in favor of the subject of the ban because, in a way, it is keeping general lack of knowledge and/or apathy from getting someone banned. If you don't know enough to choose one way or the other, then the case for banning has not been made strongly enough. At least that is my personal feeling.

That said, I see the point that you and StormeHawk are making. If you really don't want to have your opinion counted, then that should be your choice. In fact, anyone who just didn't say anything in that thread was already not having their opinion counted. And that last point is actually what swayed me here.


So, I vote thusly:

Abstaining doesn't count toward either side and, in fact, shrinks the total number of votes being considered for purposes of determining percentages.

I also think a super majority of 66% of the pool should be needed to enact a ban. Banning is a big deal and a simple majority just isn't enough.

The person who is being voted on doesn't need a vote, partly because we already know what it will be, but also because it shouldn't be their decision whether they've broken the rules sufficiently to be banned. That is the rest of the group's decision.


By my thinking, if you have 101 people in the group and one is up for a ban, then the total starting pool is 100 votes. If 50 people abstain, the pool is reduced to 50 votes. In order to enact a ban, at least 33 of those 50 remaining votes would need to be in favor of the ban.


Let me know if there are any questions.

-Phobos

I support the idea of three categories: In favor, against, and abstaining. A sixty percent majority of all votes--counting the abstaining--to pass the ban sounds good to me. Presumably, a person abstains for their own reasons, and their opinion ought to be counted when it comes to passing the measure.

Furthermore, I think a response thread ought to be started in which each person who feels they have been wronged or have seen wrongdoing in a response to one of their own posts can report it, linking to the offending post(s). That way, no one person feels they have to shoulder the burden of finding every instance of abuse and reporting it. Then, if it's necessary, someone can go through and create a master list of accusations so it's easier to keep track of.

The political side of me comes out in this: I think there ought to be a small committee, perhaps three to five, consisting of people who both know the Constitution and are relatively unbiased in this matter, to go through the master list and see if each accusation holds water. This should be done as speedily as possible. They can then present the new list as evidence: If someone has a problem with the new charges, I'm not entirely sure what should be done. Presumably a debate would ensue, but it would likely result in a stalemate; this is the most tentative of my opinions. Feel free to completely disregard it--I know it would be a fair bit of work. Each committee would likely be different for each case for banning, but they don't happen much.

I realize that my suggested process is probably too laborious, but at the same time, banning is a big deal, and ought to be taken seriously. A process ought to be in place to make sure it's as fair as possible, and, hopefully, we won't have to use it much.

Those are my thoughts, take them or leave them.

-Alleb