![[DEV] ISFL Forums](http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/images/emerald/logo.png "[DEV] ISFL Forums"){kind=logo}
+- [DEV] ISFL Forums (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Community (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Discussion (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=33)
+---- Forum: Suggestion Box (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=34)
+----- Forum: Archived Suggestions (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=349)
+----- Thread: Proposal to HO Punishment Process (/showthread.php?tid=11339)
Proposal to HO Punishment Process - kckolbe - 12-13-2018
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.
Proposal to HO Punishment Process - PaytonM34 - 12-13-2018
(12-13-2018, 05:50 PM)kckolbe Wrote:3) The announcement is made, with the votes of each member shown.This is how witch hunts get started
Proposal to HO Punishment Process - bovovovo - 12-13-2018
Good stuff. Few initial thoughts:
1. Not reaching out to you was obviously a mistake and is something we’re going to try to not repeat in the future
2. I think you’re underestimating how thorough we as a group try to be when considering punishments. That seems contradictory because we never reached out to you, and I understand and agree that just because of the nature of HO discussions can potentially turn into a fish bowl of everyone agreeing with each other, but we do try to be thorough and I think we typically are from my short time on.
3. I think attaching vote results to announcements is a good idea actually... I’d be hesitant to attach names to votes because that’d probably do more harm and cause more drama than it’d be worth but even just attaching a “by a 4-2 vote” or whatever could be good for transparency
Proposal to HO Punishment Process - kckolbe - 12-13-2018
(12-13-2018, 04:36 PM)bovovovo Wrote:Good stuff. Few initial thoughts:
1. Not reaching out to you was obviously a mistake and is something we’re going to try to not repeat in the future
I get that, but nothing wrong with adding a failsafe to make sure.
(12-13-2018, 04:36 PM)bovovovo Wrote:2. I think you’re underestimating how thorough we as a group try to be when considering punishments.
I believe you, actually, just like I think you believe I wasn't actually trying to leak draft info. But unconscious biases are a difficult animal to quantify.
(12-13-2018, 04:36 PM)bovovovo Wrote:3. I think attaching vote results to announcements is a good idea actually... I’d be hesitant to attach names to votes because that’d probably do more harm and cause more drama than it’d be worth but even just attaching a “by a 4-2 vote” or whatever could be good for transparency
I get the reluctance, really. But I don't think it's a bad thing for those things to be known, and when I would release HO votes in PBE to GMs, not once were any HO members attacked for their votes. What MIGHT happen is members being attacked if they are consistently seen not voting at all.
Proposal to HO Punishment Process - Oles - 12-13-2018
Ok let's take a look at this step by step.
The Current Process
This normally includes multiple conversations with the person in question. Normally someone reaches out, and I make it a priority to do it in cases where I can devote the time to communicating with said person. Now, I shouldn't have to tell you why I saw it as as a possible conflict considering the relationship that we have. Thus, I figured someone else would talk with you and get your side of the story, if I had messaged you there is a chance that it would be detrimental for you to not appeal your side to an already biased source considering what has happened in the past. I should've made sure that someone talked with you no matter what, but it slipped my mind and I was focused on DSFL and real life, since DSFL duties come first for me. If you don't want to believe me that's perfectly fine, but I believe you think that just because you've already shown in the past that you do not like me and will try to use me as a scapegoat whenever necessary.
As for the appeal process I can't comment since I'm not on the appeals board and it was not brought to me, instead the info was brought to dwyer.
Now for your problems with the process.
1. We already had something negative to look at. This was the basis for the leaking punishment, and what started the investigation. The mock draft you posted was the main point and is the basis for any process going forward, so we did not have the ability to start without a negative first look, as we saw the picks line up with what had happened in the draft.
2. This is two parts. First if you want to believe that people don't look at the evidence first then that's on you, but we do not just find someone, have 1 person take a look and they decide how we should punish if at all. Second, if you're not allowed to post a mock draft for TPE, why would you be allowed to write mock draft media? It wasn't written down because it's normally clear to people that you aren't allowed to post a mock draft anywhere, should we have accounted for someone hitting the gray area? Probably, and that's a mistake in itself that has been corrected.
3. There should never be public record of who voted, this is how witch hunts get started and members of HO burnout from people constantly acting like we're a detriment to the league only looking to punish people.
More appeals process, again I can't talk about that because it's not my area.
Your Solutions
1. We had evidence from both sides, there was more ways to get your side, although we should have gotten your side. Most notably Slm was an advocate for you as he believe you had not leaked and provided info about him telling you Maddox was the pick.
2. This was done, we don't just vote on stuff we aren't informed about, this is a conclusion you have brought up that has no basis of truth.
3. This is how witch hunts happen. People will harass members who don't vote in their favor and HO members will be put in a position where they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.
4. This doesn't make sense. Normally there is a reason for a rule, and if this were allowed people would be able to find some obscure thing and take advantage of it.
Appeals
1/2/3 of appeals I'm not gonna talk about.
4. The appeals team should not get a vote, we use their recommendation to determine the best course of action and everyone votes with the new info we have been given. Giving the appeals team a vote means that of the total HO members, there would be approximately 8 votes. This would mean that if the appeals team has about half of the votes, and that if the member in question is favorable with the appeals board and HO people in question could end up coming off with lighter penalties than others. We need to use the evidence given to us to make a decision, and the appeal doesn't just come in and get thrown away (as should be shown here considering your penalty was reduced), the appeals team has their voice, the shouldn't get their voice along with equal voice to HO members as well, which is what you're proposing.
5. I've said it every time. This is how harassment, witch hunts, and just insufferable attitudes occur. People will believe that they can harass members to get what they want by targeting members who may not have voted favorably in any part of the process.
Proposal to HO Punishment Process - Symmetrik - 12-13-2018
Quote: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.
So you want HO to be the ones looking over the appeal but also don't want HO to have the final decision?
Proposal to HO Punishment Process - iamslm22 - 12-13-2018
(12-13-2018, 07:19 PM)To12143 Wrote:4. The appeals team should not get a vote, we use their recommendation to determine the best course of action and everyone votes with the new info we have been given. Giving the appeals team a vote means that of the total HO members, there would be approximately 8 votes. This would mean that if the appeals team has about half of the votes, and that if the member in question is favorable with the appeals board and HO people in question could end up coming off with lighter penalties than others. We need to use the evidence given to us to make a decision, and the appeal doesn't just come in and get thrown away (as should be shown here considering your penalty was reduced), the appeals team has their voice, the shouldn't get their voice along with equal voice to HO members as well, which is what you're proposing.
I mean, I don't get what you're saying based on who is favorable with the appeals board and HO. I think @Bzerkap @PDXBaller and I are pretty unbiased, and if you are favorable with HO then you're already getting that benefit as is?
I do think if there's going to be an appeal there should be some kind of actual effect, but HO clearly listened to us here. I don't know how each individual voted so I can't comment as to that.
Proposal to HO Punishment Process - kckolbe - 12-13-2018
(12-13-2018, 05:29 PM)Symmetrik Wrote:So you want HO to be the ones looking over the appeal but also don't want HO to have the final decision?
I want HO to not be ALONE in the final decision. In my proposal they would all still have votes.
Proposal to HO Punishment Process - kckolbe - 12-13-2018
(12-13-2018, 05:19 PM)To12143 Wrote:Ok let's take a look at this step by step.
The Current Process
This normally includes multiple conversations with the person in question. Normally someone reaches out, and I make it a priority to do it in cases where I can devote the time to communicating with said person. Now, I shouldn't have to tell you why I saw it as as a possible conflict considering the relationship that we have. Thus, I figured someone else would talk with you and get your side of the story, if I had messaged you there is a chance that it would be detrimental for you to not appeal your side to an already biased source considering what has happened in the past. I should've made sure that someone talked with you no matter what, but it slipped my mind and I was focused on DSFL and real life, since DSFL duties come first for me. If you don't want to believe me that's perfectly fine, but I believe you think that just because you've already shown in the past that you do not like me and will try to use me as a scapegoat whenever necessary.
As for the appeal process I can't comment since I'm not on the appeals board and it was not brought to me, instead the info was brought to dwyer.
Now for your problems with the process.
1. We already had something negative to look at. This was the basis for the leaking punishment, and what started the investigation. The mock draft you posted was the main point and is the basis for any process going forward, so we did not have the ability to start without a negative first look, as we saw the picks line up with what had happened in the draft.
2. This is two parts. First if you want to believe that people don't look at the evidence first then that's on you, but we do not just find someone, have 1 person take a look and they decide how we should punish if at all. Second, if you're not allowed to post a mock draft for TPE, why would you be allowed to write mock draft media? It wasn't written down because it's normally clear to people that you aren't allowed to post a mock draft anywhere, should we have accounted for someone hitting the gray area? Probably, and that's a mistake in itself that has been corrected.
3. There should never be public record of who voted, this is how witch hunts get started and members of HO burnout from people constantly acting like we're a detriment to the league only looking to punish people.
More appeals process, again I can't talk about that because it's not my area.
Your Solutions
1. We had evidence from both sides, there was more ways to get your side, although we should have gotten your side. Most notably Slm was an advocate for you as he believe you had not leaked and provided info about him telling you Maddox was the pick.
2. This was done, we don't just vote on stuff we aren't informed about, this is a conclusion you have brought up that has no basis of truth.
3. This is how witch hunts happen. People will harass members who don't vote in their favor and HO members will be put in a position where they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.
4. This doesn't make sense. Normally there is a reason for a rule, and if this were allowed people would be able to find some obscure thing and take advantage of it.
Appeals
1/2/3 of appeals I'm not gonna talk about.
4. The appeals team should not get a vote, we use their recommendation to determine the best course of action and everyone votes with the new info we have been given. Giving the appeals team a vote means that of the total HO members, there would be approximately 8 votes. This would mean that if the appeals team has about half of the votes, and that if the member in question is favorable with the appeals board and HO people in question could end up coming off with lighter penalties than others. We need to use the evidence given to us to make a decision, and the appeal doesn't just come in and get thrown away (as should be shown here considering your penalty was reduced), the appeals team has their voice, the shouldn't get their voice along with equal voice to HO members as well, which is what you're proposing.
5. I've said it every time. This is how harassment, witch hunts, and just insufferable attitudes occur. People will believe that they can harass members to get what they want by targeting members who may not have voted favorably in any part of the process.
This thread is for the decision of the proposal. We do not need your side of the argument to make a decision. If we need evidence from HO, we will ask someone else instead. You can submit your arguments via an appeal thread after the decision is made.
Proposal to HO Punishment Process - Oles - 12-13-2018
(12-13-2018, 07:29 PM)iamslm22 Wrote:I mean, I don't get what you're saying based on who is favorable with the appeals board and HO. I think @Bzerkap @PDXBaller and I are pretty unbiased, and if you are favorable with HO then you're already getting that benefit as is?
I do think if there's going to be an appeal there should be some kind of actual effect, but HO clearly listened to us here. I don't know how each individual voted so I can't comment as to that.
I mainly mean in the future, I trust you guys but we never know what might happen in the future and how it may benefit certain people. We never know how stuff will shake out in the future and in my opinion the final decision should still be left up to HO with the new info that they have received.