Now that a final decision has been reached, and the first iteration of the new appeals process has concluded, I want to suggest some changes to how our entire system of punishment works.
First, here is the current process, using my recent violation as an example.
1) A member of HO discovers or is informed of a possible violation (ex: someone noticed my media post).
2) HO questions "witnesses" (ex: @run_CMC was approached by HO to ensure I was actually in the war room and that relevant information had been posted there)
3) An action is proposed (ex: a decision to punish and the actual punishment)
4) A vote is held (ex: they fucking voted)
5) Whoever happens to be available, regardless of agreement with the verdict, is asked to post the announcement (@bovo posted the announcment)
Not included in the process is contacting the member to hear their side of the story prior to voting. According to @`To12143`, this is part of it, but did not happen in my case. I will go further and state that I do not believe he was telling the truth, because he claimed that members of HO thought others were doing it, yet a vote was held with every member voting DESPITE not having personally heard the other side, meaning they were told to vote on a punishment with guilt as assumed, or they just didn't care enough to look at the gathered data. Either one of these is unacceptable.
After the punishment was announced, I chose to appeal. Here is how that process works.
1) The punished member submits their appeal to a member of the appeals team (I posted mine publicly and PMd it to @iamslm22)
2) The appeals team conducts an exchange with the member to verify information, ask clarifying questions, etc (this was done through discord in my case)
3) The appeals team writes their "official" recommendation (what is unclear is whether the appeals team does this as a group, votes on it first, etc)
4) The recommendation is sent only to HO (I was not shown anything from the recommendation)
5) HO votes again (per step 4 above)
6) The final decision is posted
All right, here is a list of problems with the process itself.
1) The member was not questioned first or even at all. This is important because of of "anchoring" or "focalism." By having the negative to look at first, that is going to register more strongly. In my case, this could not be helped, as the violation was publicly viewable. However, there is also "availability cascade," whereby the repetition of evidence against me, without any evidence counter to it, becomes instilled in their minds. This is particularly harmful in groups, where the same information will be repeated more often as people come and go throughout the discussion.
2) There is no indication that the voting members made any effort to actually look at the evidence. Their lack of realization that there was no proof I'd been told not to write media speaks strongly to the lack of "investigation," not to mention that some of the data I posted was just a copy paste of what I'd posted in the LR prior to the pre-draft.
3) There is no record of who voted at all, and how those members voted. Accountability matters.
Now, we come to the appeals process.
1) I had to post my side of the story for the first time as an appeal, after minds were made up. By this point, because they'd already made up their minds, they were unlikely to change.
2) The appeals team made a recommendation, but even I don't know what that recommendation is or if HO saw any of the points I made to slm in our conversation. It would be entirely possible for none of my appeal to actually be seen by HO, which is scary.
3) The final decision goes back to the exact same members who got it wrong the first time. And normally, if they had done the job right the first time, there would be no new information. Again, see the problems of confirmation bias.
Okay, there are the problems, so let's talk solutions.
1) No verdict of guilt can be made prior to all relevant members submitting their evidence.
2) Each member of HO, prior to voting, must assert they have viewed all evidence.
(These first two should not be an actual change, but their handling has shown they need this to be a requirement to reliably do it)
3) The announcement is made, with the votes of each member shown.
4) If the punishment is for something not currently in the rulebook, the punishment CAN NOT take effect until the rulebook is appropriately updated.
Once the announcement is made and an appeal submitted, things change quite a bit.
1) The punished member submits their appeal to a member of the appeals team.
2) The appeals team votes and notifies the punished member of their decision.
3) The recommendation is sent to HO.
4) HO reviews the recommendation, and another vote takes place, but each member of the appeals team also gets a vote. This gives the appeals team an actual part in the process rather than just a recommendation, and is a compromise from the appeals team being able to overrule HO and HO being able to just completely disregard the appeals team.
5) The announcement is made with the votes of each member shown.
First, here is the current process, using my recent violation as an example.
1) A member of HO discovers or is informed of a possible violation (ex: someone noticed my media post).
2) HO questions "witnesses" (ex: @run_CMC was approached by HO to ensure I was actually in the war room and that relevant information had been posted there)
3) An action is proposed (ex: a decision to punish and the actual punishment)
4) A vote is held (ex: they fucking voted)
5) Whoever happens to be available, regardless of agreement with the verdict, is asked to post the announcement (@bovo posted the announcment)
Not included in the process is contacting the member to hear their side of the story prior to voting. According to @`To12143`, this is part of it, but did not happen in my case. I will go further and state that I do not believe he was telling the truth, because he claimed that members of HO thought others were doing it, yet a vote was held with every member voting DESPITE not having personally heard the other side, meaning they were told to vote on a punishment with guilt as assumed, or they just didn't care enough to look at the gathered data. Either one of these is unacceptable.
After the punishment was announced, I chose to appeal. Here is how that process works.
1) The punished member submits their appeal to a member of the appeals team (I posted mine publicly and PMd it to @iamslm22)
2) The appeals team conducts an exchange with the member to verify information, ask clarifying questions, etc (this was done through discord in my case)
3) The appeals team writes their "official" recommendation (what is unclear is whether the appeals team does this as a group, votes on it first, etc)
4) The recommendation is sent only to HO (I was not shown anything from the recommendation)
5) HO votes again (per step 4 above)
6) The final decision is posted
All right, here is a list of problems with the process itself.
1) The member was not questioned first or even at all. This is important because of of "anchoring" or "focalism." By having the negative to look at first, that is going to register more strongly. In my case, this could not be helped, as the violation was publicly viewable. However, there is also "availability cascade," whereby the repetition of evidence against me, without any evidence counter to it, becomes instilled in their minds. This is particularly harmful in groups, where the same information will be repeated more often as people come and go throughout the discussion.
2) There is no indication that the voting members made any effort to actually look at the evidence. Their lack of realization that there was no proof I'd been told not to write media speaks strongly to the lack of "investigation," not to mention that some of the data I posted was just a copy paste of what I'd posted in the LR prior to the pre-draft.
3) There is no record of who voted at all, and how those members voted. Accountability matters.
Now, we come to the appeals process.
1) I had to post my side of the story for the first time as an appeal, after minds were made up. By this point, because they'd already made up their minds, they were unlikely to change.
2) The appeals team made a recommendation, but even I don't know what that recommendation is or if HO saw any of the points I made to slm in our conversation. It would be entirely possible for none of my appeal to actually be seen by HO, which is scary.
3) The final decision goes back to the exact same members who got it wrong the first time. And normally, if they had done the job right the first time, there would be no new information. Again, see the problems of confirmation bias.
Okay, there are the problems, so let's talk solutions.
1) No verdict of guilt can be made prior to all relevant members submitting their evidence.
2) Each member of HO, prior to voting, must assert they have viewed all evidence.
(These first two should not be an actual change, but their handling has shown they need this to be a requirement to reliably do it)
3) The announcement is made, with the votes of each member shown.
4) If the punishment is for something not currently in the rulebook, the punishment CAN NOT take effect until the rulebook is appropriately updated.
Once the announcement is made and an appeal submitted, things change quite a bit.
1) The punished member submits their appeal to a member of the appeals team.
2) The appeals team votes and notifies the punished member of their decision.
3) The recommendation is sent to HO.
4) HO reviews the recommendation, and another vote takes place, but each member of the appeals team also gets a vote. This gives the appeals team an actual part in the process rather than just a recommendation, and is a compromise from the appeals team being able to overrule HO and HO being able to just completely disregard the appeals team.
5) The announcement is made with the votes of each member shown.