NationStates

This is a rule proposal that's not about what we can and can't do when drafting resolutions, but rather about the process of legality reviews. Currently, appeals are impossible because the mods all provide input. There aren't any uninvolved mods that can approach an opinion and give it a second look. However, there are (by my count, yours make vary) 8 mods that have been involved currently or in the recent past with GA proposal reviews. So there's plenty of room for an appeals process.

My proposal is this: match the legality review process with the regular moderation process.

Basically, the review process would go like this:
1. Player submits a request for legality review, pointing out specific lines in the text and giving explanations for why those lines make the proposal illegal under the rules.
2. A moderator accepts the request, reviews it, and gives their opinion.
3. If the player finds fault with the opinion, they petition for an appeal. The appeal must address why the opinion is flawed. It shouldn't simply be, "I disagree and want another opinion." Rather, appeals should explain a flaw in the original opinion, provide a new argument, or something of the like.
4. A number of moderators (excluding the original) review the opinion and the arguments made in the appeal. Based on the merits of the argument, a new opinion is delivered or the old one is upheld.
5. Maybe a Final Appeal, but that seems less necessary. I can imagine some situations where mods ignore new arguments or misunderstand them, where it would be useful to allow more discussion between the petitioner and mods and to allow a new opinion to be made.

I think the above process makes a lot more sense than having all GA mods involved in every legality review. It would mean reaching consensus among the mods isn't necessary for all reviews, allowing the process to take less time and go more smoothly. Additionally, an actual appeals process allows for better debate and consideration of arguments. Appeals create better precedents, period.

Questions to consider:

1) Is this process/should this process differ when we're looking at a proposal that's currently being drafted on the forums versus a proposal that is nearing quorum/At Vote?

2) What about instances where a player gets one answer while drafting from a single mod and submits and then has the collective group of mods decide that it's illegal after money/time has been spent campaigning? Would the player have been better served by having the collective group of mods determine that the proposal was illegal from the start rather than waiting until later?

3) You say that there are currently 8 mods on the team that have been involved in the recent past with GA proposals. Due to varying schedules and availability, it is unlikely that most of those mods are online - especially over a given compressed period of time that most GA decisions need to be made within. Usually, we can get 3 or 4 mods together to consult on things, but it's exceedingly rare that all 8 of the potential mods you mention are available to comment/rule. If we only have, say, 3 or 4 mods available, does that (or should that) change the dynamics of the process in question?

Mousebumples wrote:Questions to consider:

2) What about instances where a player gets one answer while drafting from a single mod and submits and then has the collective group of mods decide that it's illegal after money/time has been spent campaigning? Would the player have been better served by having the collective group of mods determine that the proposal was illegal from the start rather than waiting until later?

Because something like that has never happened before... Seriously if a mod rules it legal, it should take a pretty damn good argument for the Hive to overturn that ruling and pull it. The problem is according to all the rulings I have received, it is impossible to appeal a ruling, because all the mods were involved in the ruling that has the proposal pulled. There should always be a couple of mods not involved in the decision (a.k.a. the designated survivors) that can actually hear the appeal.

Here's an easier process: Except in clear-cut cases, a moderator needs to be seconded to remove a proposal. Upon removal, he shall send a telegram to the author, outlining the rules under which the proposal was taken down. If the author wants to appeal the removal of a proposal, three moderators, none of whom were involved in original decision, will deliver a full written opinion, which will become precedential. All precedents will be binding on future decisions and will be listed and linked in the GA Rules thread.

Christian Democrats wrote:Here's an easier process: Except in clear-cut cases, a moderator needs to be seconded to remove a proposal. Upon removal, he shall send a telegram to the author, outlining the rules under which the proposal was taken down. If the author wants to appeal the removal of a proposal, three moderators, none of whom were involved in original decision, will deliver a full written opinion, which will become precedential. All precedents will be binding on future decisions and will be listed and linked in the GA Rules thread.

I very much like this idea. No longer will proposal be removed on the whim of a mod who grossly misinterprets it. Yes, it may make a little more work for the mods, but there now seem to be at least four GA mods, so there shouldn't be a heavy workload.

Christian Democrats wrote:Here's an easier process: Except in clear-cut cases, a moderator needs to be seconded to remove a proposal. Upon removal, he shall send a telegram to the author, outlining the rules under which the proposal was taken down. If the author wants to appeal the removal of a proposal, three moderators, none of whom were involved in original decision, will deliver a full written opinion, which will become precedential. All precedents will be binding on future decisions and will be listed and linked in the GA Rules thread.

I am in favour of this idea. Obviously, a mod won't need to be seconded to clear the crap out of the queue, but if it's questionably illegal, they need to be seconded.

Last summer, when ghr's were filed on some repeals I submitted, the only available GA mods were Mall, Fris, and myself, if memory serves. I like these ideas in theory, but I don't know that they will always be reasonable or practicable _in practice_.

Christian Democrats wrote:...which will become precedential. All precedents will be binding on future decisions and will be listed and linked in the GA Rules thread.

Keep dreaming.

@ Mouse:

1. I don't think there needs to be a different process. If a mod deletes a proposal from the queue, that's a legality ruling and should be able to be appealed.

2. No, I don't think the player (or the person submitting a review request) is better served that way. If further debate leads to the proposal being declared illegal, that is unfortunate for the author but good for the process. The whole idea of appeals is that they serve as a higher bar on the merits of a legality argument. The goal isn't to kill a proposal or let it reach queue. The goal is to have a process that considers precedent, and precedent is something that occurs naturally through appeals because more in-depth debate generally happens there.

3. If only half of the mods are actually available, maybe consider getting mods that can be available on a regular basis. Anyways, having only 3 or 4 mods doesn't change things. You guys would handle initial reviews individually, and your colleagues would handle appeals. It could technically be done with just 2 mods total.

This is way too complicated. Just keep it a two-step process: ruling, then appeal. Individual mods can issue rulings; keep some of them for the "red team" later on if an appeal review is required.

Also, appeals should only be filed by the author (or even the co-author) of the proposal in question, not any old player who doesn't like how a mod has ruled on something.

Finally, we should stop trying to make the moderation process some hackneyed imitation of Anglo-American Common Law. There should be no "binding precedent" -- beyond "a past ruling on this issue made sense at the time, so it makes sense now."

There's literally no difference between what you posted and what I posted. Except that it doesn't make sense to limit appeals to proposal authors. It's not always authors petitioning for legality review in the first place, and just because you didn't write the proposal doesn't mean you can't have a good argument to make about why it is legal or illegal.

Also, that is what precedent means.

You suggested a "final appeal" - whatever that is.

As to authors-only, if the mods disagree with a GHR and take no action on a proposal, then there's nothing to appeal. Appeals should only occur when the mods do take action on something - and thus affect the player(s) that submitted it - hence only the player(s) affected should be permitted to appeal.

I do not know if players are allowed to appeal a ruling in General, for instance, when they report a suspect post but the mods decide it breaks no rules - but appeals for proposal opponents are not something I've ever been familiar with in the UN/WA.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:Also, that is what precedent means.

I agree. All I'm suggesting is an archive of appellate rulings to guide players who are writing proposals -- an archive by which the moderators themselves ought to abide. I'm not recommending a full-blown Anglo-American common law for the GA.

Furthermore, appeals should be permitted only for authors whose proposals are removed.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:You suggested a "final appeal" - whatever that is.

It's copied from the actual game rules, which have an appeal and then a Final Appeal.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:As to authors-only, if the mods disagree with a GHR and take no action on a proposal, then there's nothing to appeal. Appeals should only occur when the mods do take action on something - and thus affect the player(s) that submitted it - hence only the player(s) affected should be permitted to appeal.

But this isn't how legality reviews work currently. Anybody can submit a review for a proposal, asking if X or Y is legal or illegal. It's never been just proposal authors that could do that. If I see a legality ruling that establishes a precedent that would affect me later on down the road, I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to appeal it, whether the ruling was that the proposal was legal or illegal. This is a game we all share, with rules and interpretations that apply to all of us. So it makes sense that if you have an argument to make, you should be able to make it. Mods should only be concerned with the merits of the argument, not who is making it.

@CD: We've been asking for a rulings archive for a while now. It doesn't seem that it'll happen, because mods think it's too arduous of a task. If anything, at minimum is would be useful if mods could explicitly mention the rules being invoked, so that we could just search the forums for those rules to look up past rulings. That would also require that all rulings be posted on the forums.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:We've been asking for a rulings archive for a while now. It doesn't seem that it'll happen, because mods think it's too arduous of a task.

The mods are right. Mystifyingly, they went to the bother of setting it up - but then don't appear to have made any use of it since.

That would also require that all rulings be posted on the forums.

This has always been the single biggest problem with WA moderation. There would be no need for any formal archive if the rulings were just consistently given in public.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:As to authors-only, if the mods disagree with a GHR and take no action on a proposal, then there's nothing to appeal. Appeals should only occur when the mods do take action on something - and thus affect the player(s) that submitted it - hence only the player(s) affected should be permitted to appeal.

But this isn't how legality reviews work currently. Anybody can submit a review for a proposal, asking if X or Y is legal or illegal. It's never been just proposal authors that could do that. If I see a legality ruling that establishes a precedent that would affect me later on down the road, I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to appeal it, whether the ruling was that the proposal was legal or illegal. This is a game we all share, with rules and interpretations that apply to all of us. So it makes sense that if you have an argument to make, you should be able to make it. Mods should only be concerned with the merits of the argument, not who is making it.

And I imagine any ruling regarding player behavior in any part of the game sets "precedents" and would apply to everyone just as well - that doesn't mean anyone can appeal deletions, bans or warnings issued to other players. (I think that's the way it works in the rest of the site, but correct me if I'm wrong.) When proposals are deleted, they carry actual consequences for the submitting nation (whether merely a warning or something more serious like ejection or DEAT); therefore the submitting nation should be the one to decide if an appeal should be filed. Even the Supreme Court doesn't hear challenges from litigants who don't have an actual vested interest in the outcome of a case.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:And I imagine any ruling regarding player behavior in any part of the game sets "precedents" and would apply to everyone just as well - that doesn't mean anyone can appeal deletions, bans or warnings issued to other players.

Moderator actions regarding flaming, trolling, and spam are very different from GA mods and players engaging in debate over how to interpret a set of rules we've mutually created to control the quality of content in the game. The appeals processes obviously are not identical in purpose, so this is an unhelpful string of argument to get into.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:When proposals are deleted, they carry actual consequences for the submitting nation (whether merely a warning or something more serious like ejection or DEAT); therefore the submitting nation should be the one to decide if an appeal should be filed. Even the Supreme Court doesn't hear challenges from litigants who don't have an actual vested interest in the outcome of a case.

Legality reviews aren't simply about whether or not a proposal gets deleted from the queue. Many reviews happen without a proposal ever being submitted at all. The legality review process is about debating on how we should interpret the proposal rules. It's not a cut-and-dry classic forum moderation process. All authors have a vested interest in how the rules are interpreted, which is why we've never shut out players from participating in legality reviews simply because they aren't the authors or haven't contributed to the proposal text. I'm not sure why you're arguing that authors should be the only ones allowed to appeal, because you know as well as I, having been playing this game for years, that it's never been the case that the legality review process has ever been restricted that way. You and I have both engaged in legality debates on proposals we didn't write.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:

Glen-Rhodes wrote:We've been asking for a rulings archive for a while now. It doesn't seem that it'll happen, because mods think it's too arduous of a task.

The mods are right. Mystifyingly, they went to the bother of setting it up - but then don't appear to have made any use of it since.

Pretty easy to solve that problem, I think. Preface any ruling with 'Official Ruling of the Secretariat' or some other phrase which is not commonly used so anybody can just use the search function to find all rulings.

Well great, G-R, let's institute a system wherein an author can have his proposal declared legal - only to have to defend its legality again because a political opponent wants a second opinion (or, because some idiot just wants to cause trouble). Not even the US Constitution allows such tomfoolery. I don't think it would be of much service improving relations between the mods and the players, either, to impose judicial anarchy, essentially. WA rulings are not more important than other rulings within the game-sphere - and definitely do not merit special rules involving an inexplicable universal right to appeal - just because the players involved can write longer essays about their ramifications.

I agree with Kenny. The whole point of an appeal is to remedy a decision that has wronged you.

Nobody is wronged by a decision to leave a proposal up.* An author is wronged when his proposal is unjustly taken down.

___________________

* Possibly, I'd make an exception for a resolution author whose challenge against a repeal is unreasonably rejected.

Christian Democrats wrote:* Possibly, I'd make an exception for a resolution author whose challenge against a repeal is unreasonably rejected.

I'd agree about allowing that exception.

Bears Armed wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:* Possibly, I'd make an exception for a resolution author whose challenge against a repeal is unreasonably rejected.

I'd agree about allowing that exception.

Just out of curiosity, who would be in a position to decide that the rejection was unreasonable? The mods who rejected it? The pissed off player? Some arbitrary panel of other players acting as Shadow Mods with the power to overrule Moderation?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, fellas? Come up with an answer to that, and make long-dead Juvenal a happy camper.

I believe I outlined my proposed procedures above. Five moderators would be needed.

Christian Democrats wrote:Here's an easier process: Except in clear-cut cases, a moderator needs to be seconded to remove a proposal. Upon removal, he shall send a telegram to the author, outlining the rules under which the proposal was taken down. If the author wants to appeal the removal of a proposal, three moderators, none of whom were involved in original decision, will deliver a full written opinion, which will become precedential.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Well great, G-R, let's institute a system wherein an author can have his proposal declared legal - only to have to defend its legality again because a political opponent wants a second opinion (or, because some idiot just wants to cause trouble).

Let's say you submit a legality review against one of my proposals. This is perfectly fine and happens all the time, even though you aren't the author of the proposal in question and would face no ramifications whatsoever if it was submitted and ended up being illegal. A mod rules against you, but you find a serious error in their judgement. I'm not likely to appeal the ruling, because it's in my favor. But that error in reasoning will become established precedent if it's not addressed. The proposal will be submitted, gain quorum, and possibly passed. A violation of the rules will have gained legal status, because you weren't allowed to appeal the ruling, all because of some misplaced notion that appeals are "only for people who have been wronged." Why should you not be able to appeal a ruling that you initiated in the first place? All players are wronged when erroneous interpretations find their way into permanent precedent because the system put politics over merit.

This is an inclusive game. Interpreting the rules is as much a part of the WA game as is writing proposals. Everybody has a stake in how the rules are interpreted and what precedents are established. In that scenario above, would you rather a faulty interpretation of the rules become precedent, simply because personal or political rivalry might be driving the legality review, despite the merits of the arguments being made? Or would you rather the system be inclusive enough so that the interpretation of the rules is the best it could be? I would argue that we're having this very "consortium" because we adopted an inflexible system that allowed the interpretation of our rule set to become mangled and nonsensical.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Not even the US Constitution allows such tomfoolery.

It does, but that's a distraction.

Double jeopardy is legal in the US? That's interesting.

G-R wrote:A violation of the rules will have gained legal status

No one is saying past mod rulings cannot be revisited at a later date. They certainly were when the mods suddenly decided that COCR does cover non-human sapient rights, in defiance of multiple past rulings. But it is colossally unfair to players if they have to defend the legality of their proposals even after the mods said they were OK. A proposal being allowed to vote even though player(s) personally think it's illegal is not a matter of such dramatic import that it actually transcends normal appeal procedure.