Grievance of 09/12/2014 Closure Part 1 - Addition of a Double Jeopardy Clause

Status message

  • Submissions for this form are closed.
  • This proposal is closed.
1 post / 0 new
Zxehenia
Zxehenia's picture.
MediatorSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
59 sec ago
Grievance of 09/12/2014 Closure Part 1 - Addition of a Double Jeopardy Clause
Type: 
Amendment to site governance

In this Grievance there were issues that were brought back up that had already been handled by Social, or were in the process of being handle but for one reason or another was in a hiatus state until a mediation could finish to allow Social to move forward.

It is the general census that punishing people twice or forcing them to go through procedures again for actions that were already handled were unfair, not fun for anyone, and offered potential abuse of our policies to allow people to take 'revenge' upon those people.

Therefore it has been recommended to add a Double Jeopardy Clause to our Site Governance Amendments to offer protection for those whom have already had issues that were handled and to help reduce the temptation of using the anon mailer for revenge. This clause will still allow for any new evidence/logs be introduced to Social to see if the resolved or open situation need reviewing.

Double Jeopardy

In order to avoid subjecting a player to multiple punitive actions for the same incident, we will not review an incident a second time after the initial incident has been reviewed. Any punitive actions to be given to any involved players should be given at the time of the initial review.

Once an incident has been reviewed by the Social Department for Code of Conduct violations or has been reviewed in the course of resolving a Grievance, the incident will not be subject to a second review unless new evidence relevant to the original incident has been submitted, deemed relevant by the Social leads, or the Grievance coordinator, and verified by the technical admin.

Players addressed or not-addressed during the initial review may not be subject to additional punitive actions unless additional evidence has been provided and a second review has been initiated.

Associated Forum Threads: 
You must have Javascript enabled to use this form.


Proposal help:
Proposals are meant to be a way to formally make a request for the input of site members. Forum threads and five-star ratings are not accurate enough for the big things. So here's how this works:
  • If you change your mind after you vote, you will be able to go back in and delete or change your vote up until the proposal closes.
  • The form will be open for 2 weeks, after which it will automatically close.
  • If the original poster edits it in that timespan the timer will re-set. This is to make sure everyone can get a chance to weigh in.
  • Only users active when the proposal was created can vote on it. This is to avoid ballot stuffing.
  • No one, not even the original poster will be able to see the names or IP addresses of the people do vote.
  • After the two week window has passed, the proposal will close and results will be publicly availble in a tab on this page.
11 out of 36 potential voters (31 %) responsed to this proposal. 11 out of 19 potential voters active on the site while the proposal was open (58 %) responded to this proposal.
Based on the percentage of active voter responses: Enough voters have participated for the results of this proposal to be accepted.

Summary of responses reflects how many users selected a given value in the poll. In general, the larger the number the stronger the overall preference for that result. Text responses are briefly summarized but should be read individually.

Summary of responses

 
Are you in favor of adding the Double Jeopardy Clause to our Site Governance Amendments?
Yes11
Additional Comments
Left Blank11
User entered value0
Average submission length in words (ex blanks)0
Showing all results. 11 results total.

Detailed responses

Are you in favor of adding the Double Jeopardy Clause to our Site Governance Amendments?Additional Comments
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes