Community Arbitrators

[Luke-Jr]

Nonsense like this PM I posted reveal a community need for arbitrators. I propose the community elect someone who resolves disputes that may occur between various peoples and clans. By participating in the election, everyone agrees to accept whatever reasonable conclusion the arbitrator comes to.

If you think this is a good idea, or are willing to participate, please think of who you feel would best fit this role. You may not nominate yourself. If someone else nominates you and you do not wish to be considered for the role of Community Arbitrator, please post your rejection of nomination. In a week or so, I will collect the names into a new poll where people can cast their votes for the candidates.

[nsh22]

i like this idea, maybe it will stop some of the bickering i find here from time to time lol

[Tank Program]

What sort of disputes?

[Z-Man]

whatever reasonable conclusion

Scratch the 'reasonable'. If you can get out of it by calling the conclusion unreasonable, there's no point A flaw you won't be able to get rid of is that many conflicts we see here are not community internal disputes, but some random person X we never heard of before complaining about server admin/moderator Y. So the position of the Arbitrator would need to be strong enough to not only have his judgments applied to those who previously agreed to respect them, but also the others.

Of course, I'd support an elected community arbitrator any way I can. That said, I don't think it is a good idea. I prefer a culture where conflicts are resolved by the conflict parties themselves over one where every little dispute is carried to the arbitrator. Then again, having an arbitrator who makes decisions that are bad for both parties would do that

[Lucifer]

Well, can't offer my support, but I won't put up any opposition. But here's my take on it.

I like the idea, but I don't think it will work. As z-man pointed out, the feuds we have are usually player/moderator feuds, and what we usually see there are two or more people all posting in self-righteous indignation. My experience is that people who are suffering from self-righteous indignation will only seek a moderator if they think the moderator will take their side, and will reject moderation when it doesn't go their way. Even in the few feuds we have that aren't player/moderator problems, it's the same thing: self-righteous vehemence from both sides.

I'd like to instead point out that when people engage in that kind of communication, they're not solving any problems and they're acting like children. Having just had my kids for the weekend, I can tell you how you have to deal with people in conflict where both sides are convinced of their righteousness: you have to lay down the law and throw justice out the window. This is contrary to what an arbitrator does, therefore an arbitrator will be powerless to deal with most of the feuds you're trying to help resolve.

If we had that system that we so strongly object to, the one where users could be globally banned, I would probably support an arbitrator, because then the arbitrator could unilaterally ban both parties in a feud from playing on public servers. In fact, if the problem ever gets that severe, I would probably support a global ban system for that purpose. But it's not currently that severe.

So, let's instead try to act like the adults we all so frequently claim to be. Part of being an adult is trying to work out problems in a reasonable fashion. That means trying to see the other side of the problem. More often than not, the other side of the problem is different, and the solutions each party needs are not in conflict, but the conflict itself prevents them from seeing it.

I realize there have been (and probably still are) people in the community that, in regular life, are more or less good grown-up people, but when they come here they revert to an adolescent state. Let's stop doing that. You don't have to be a kid or behave like a kid to have fun.

[Concord]

I support the idea, because many of us are not adults and a arbitrator who actually cares about the situation could help settle some disputes.

[nsh22]

I agree with all of your points, but i could also see the arbitrator being somebody who sees problems starting before they can snowball, dealing with them and taking appropriate action to anybody who causes or creates malicious behaviour on this site (and possibly the other sectors here). This person would also keep some of the current members in check should they become rogue, unruly, or just say something absolutely inappropriate. the arbitrator would probably just give warnings unless the problem persisted. Now the arbitrator would of course have some degree of leiniency, but should realize wthe difference between a slip and a deliberate curse, insult or other inappropriate behaviour.

In my humble opinion a good arbitrator would be neutrally biased and be respected as good person and have respect for everybody, no matter what they have done in the past. They do not need to be elite or have programming knowledge or even large amounts of gameplay skills or knowledge (although those may help in the event of tks, instas, digging and other things like that). He/she would not take previous experiences into their decisions and would treat each case as it were unrelated to the case at hand. They should also have a good knowledge of the vast array of servers and their respective rules (or lack thereof).

[Cosmic Dolphin]

The problem with this is the fact that the person making the desicion will have to hear all sides of the argument. Also, there are so many fueds there will have to be multiple people, in my opinion.

With this community decider is a commitee, then people will be less likely to say they decided one way because they just like that person. Throw out the idea of one person controlling the mess, put up a commitee.

[2020]

let's give it a whirl

[Z-Man]

The problem with this is the fact that the person making the desicion will have to hear all sides of the argument.

Where is the problem part? Of course he has. Just bump a PM to the parties involved. 'course, that sort of implies you have to be registered at all of the places the various people hang out or have a 'if you can't be reached by me via mail or forum PM, then you automatically lost' policy.

Also, there are so many fueds there will have to be multiple people, in my opinion.

Feuds are feuds for a reason. No arbitrator will be able to stop them. It's Y hates X because X hates Y because Y hates X because you get the point. You can judge individual incidents of feuds (X moving Y on the ladle challenge board to a position Y considers to be disadvantageous, Y banning X from their server for 'no good reason'), that's all.

Which brings up another point of critique: what, exactly, is the Arbitrator supposed to decide? What instruments of power will be given? We have none. We have no global player ban system. We can't unlist servers from the master list. We can't ban clans from our clan management site, because there is none. We can't decide over who gets admin rights on which server. We can't ban people from tournaments; the ladle is self-organized and other tournaments are run by individuals. So how would we make this whole thing meaningful? What would it add over what we're doing now, which essentially is bashing those we as a community think are doing wrong?

[nsh22]

see, in my mind the arbitator would replace the "public stoning" you guys give with something kinder, like a warning, then eventally a ban from the forums if the problem persisted.

[Concord]

As I interpreted the proposition, the arbitrator would be elected by the community. His power comes from the communities backing of him or her, and the his election meaning, "We support this person's judgment. By not heeding his advice you are not acting in the communities best wishes."

[Lucifer]

Well, if the public stoning method works, then that's the arbitrator's power. He decides who we'll stone. Perhaps we can make it so that the arbitrator can maintain a list of "recommended" bans, and server operators that participate can just automatically download that list and include it in their existing banlist files.

If the arbitrator's power comes from the community, then the community should take steps to give the arbitrator the power he needs.

[nsh22]

i agree with the recommened "blacklist" or some other form of list or something to flag problem players. maybe have a custom ban reason like: "you are on the armagetron black list. please contact the arbitrator (at <url or email> if you beleive there is a problem"

[Concord]

If the arbitrator's power comes from the community, then the community should take steps to give the arbitrator the power he needs.

We need to insure that more than 14 people vote. I'd predict that the arbitrator fails to have enough power from the community unless he receives about 100 votes. I'm estimating around 400 total active unique players.