Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Users Search
Help Dashboard Sign In Sign Up
Q&A Blog
Q&A
Posts Tags Edits
Ask Question

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel

Post

Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel [duplicate]

+12
−0

Closed as outdated or superseded by ArtOfCode‭ on Nov 21, 2020 at 21:10

This question has been superseded or is outdated. For more up-to-date information, see the linked post. See: Second Iteration of Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel

This question was closed; new answers can no longer be added. Users with the reopen privilege may vote to reopen this question if it has been improved or closed incorrectly.

Since Codidact was founded, we have had one rule leading our path every step of the way. It's the rule that community comes first. That the Codidact "staff" shouldn’t overrule the community, but could be overruled by it.

In any community, acts of moderation should be rare. And even rarer is the need to review these decisions. However, there will inevitably be cases where certain situations need to be reviewed:

  1. Users think that an action (for example, a suspension) is wrong or even malicious.
  2. A moderator might misbehave and violate our light Code of Conduct or our Terms of Service.

I want to emphasize that there have been no such cases yet, and there will likely (and hopefully) not be for months, if not years. But we can be sure that there will be one at some point in the future. When this situation does arrive, it's better to have an existing process that can be followed to guarantee the best resolution of the conflict rather than coming up with a brand new process on the spot.

It should be clear that such a process shouldn't involve "us" (the Codidact team), but rather "you" (the community). Hence, at some point, it was decided on the old forum that we'd eventually have some kind of review panel, which would be responsible for these cases.

While there will probably be no "panel elections" for the time being, because the panel members would still be a large percentage of our community members (which wouldn't exactly make sense at this stage), we have made a start on the Panel review process. It is based on these three principles:

  1. The Panel decisions are binding to moderators and the Codidact team1.
  2. Every party should be heard before any decision is made.
  3. The Panel shall be independent and impartial.

This process is currently only a draft. We'd like your feedback, and welcome any suggestions for changes to it. Please leave them in answers to this question.

You can find our current draft here.

  1. For obvious reasons, there are some legal limits. However, in these cases, we have tried to strike a balance between legal and community interests. For example, in such a case, the Panel may decide to publish our reasons (with private information redacted). ↩

discussion moderators review-panel
posted over 4 years ago
4y ago
user card
luap42‭ staff
17 68 567 98
History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

General comments (5 comments)
General comments
ArtOfCode‭ wrote over 4 years ago
copy link

Clarification: the draft mentions the Codidact board in a few places, because this is how we think it should work. We're not set up as a legal organisation yet (though we're looking into it), so that doesn't apply currently, but by the time we're ready to elect the first Panel, that shouldn't be a problem any more.

Zerotime‭ wrote over 4 years ago
copy link

Will these guidelines be introduced after or before the creation of a legal entity? If after creation of a legal entity, how are the terms "Codidact team", "community board", and "Codidact board" defined? I find it difficult to assess this document with my little knowledge about these terms but I can't seem to find useful information about it here on Meta or the help center. Right now, it feels like thinking about a process without knowing relevant stakeholders (and it doesn't work like that).

luap42‭ wrote over 4 years ago
copy link

@Zerotime we'll create a legal entity at some point. It will have some kind of "board of trustees" (=Codidact board), which should contain members from the community (=comunity board positions (as in board positions for/by the community)). The board members will appoint some volunteers, which will form the Codidact team, which will be responsible for the administrative day-to-day operations (ex. development). But it's not all clear-cut defined, yet.

DonielF‭ wrote over 4 years ago
copy link

Is there a process in place if someone wants to appeal the Panel's decision?

luap42‭ wrote over 4 years ago
copy link

@DonielF there isn't and none is planned currently. For it's actually quite common, that decisions of "appeal gremiums" (in real world: often courts) can not be appealed themself.