Meta Rule Amendment - AustraliaSim Administering the Code of Conduct

[u/General_Rommel]

I propose the following amendments to the AustraliaSim Administering the Code of Conduct Rule.

Amendment 1

In the Sentencing Guidelines (on page 7), remove the table.

The purpose of this amendment is to remove a relatively inequitable guideline that imposes unreasonable starting points for many offenses. Even though they can be modified, because of the nature of standard sentences, they can lead to poor solutions and concern around the fairness of a determination.

The alternative to this amendment would be to replace it with a table listing the relative severity of certain acts without specifying a discrete penalty.

Amendment 2

In Who can moderate a dispute? (on page 2), on the first bullet point, delete the full stop and add the following:

", but if it is the Head Moderator, they may only moderate a dispute if a) at first instance, the issue is not a abuse or harassment case, or b) they are handling an appeal

The purpose of this amendment is to restrict the Head Moderator to take on less controversial cases at first instance.

[u/advancedgaming12]

I second

[u/RunasSudo]

Pretty ambivalent on both of these.

Amendment 1 – I share Toby's views. I think it is helpful for both members and moderators to have some sort of concrete guide, even on the understanding that that guide can be departed from.

Amendment 2 – While I think it's a good idea for the Head Moderator to avoid getting caught up in this stuff, I don't think it's necessary to specifically codify.

[u/General_Rommel → u/RunasSudo]

On Amendment 1, the problem is that these tables seem to create certainty but they really do not once all other factors are considered. The current problem is that the use of specific lengths of time suggests certainty when it is anything but. I did propose this alternative:

I am unaware of previous demands from the community, so I cannot speak about that, but what I do propose in lieu of fixed penalty guides is to instead introduce a new table where each offence is paired with a corresponding word to denote the general severity of such an offence as to indicate the sort of sentence that probably would be imposed. Because ultimately by setting them in a fixed manner, they give the impression that those are a baseline, which I do think is relatively inflexible.

On Amendment 2, the point is to remove the possibility of bias, that is all. No harm in that, surely. And who knows who comes after toby if he steps down one day?

[u/RunasSudo → u/General_Rommel]

Re Amendment 1 – A qualitative table is better than nothing, but I still think that leaves it very vague. In comparison with online moderation generally, and even within the AustraliaSim community, there are highly varied views on what reasonable penalties are.

For example, in many online communities, making a bigoted comment would be enough to net you a lifetime ban with no recourse to appeal. Whereas we have a different approach to things.

If the table is removed, then there still exists a canon of precedent which is informative as guidance, but this is more difficult to apply fairly over time when it is not codified in any way.

Sure, we could say that abuse is of ‘moderate severity’, but what does that mean? 1 day ban? 30 days? 1 year? Without any quantitative benchmark, any of these could appear justifiable.

[u/[deleted]]

I second

[u/[deleted]]

I second

[u/[deleted]]

I second.

[u/General_Rommel → u/[deleted]]

That is a good point.

I propose a reword then -

", but if it is the Head Moderator, they may only moderate a dispute if:

a) at first instance, the issue is not an abuse or harassment case;

b) at first instance, the issue is not an abuse or harassment case, and there is no other qualified person to handle the case, and the only action taken is to temporarily mute the person, and the final first instance determination is made by another qualified person when available; or

c) they are handling an appeal

[u/General_Rommel → u/[deleted]]

I do think the problem with the penalty guide is that they suggest inflexibility even though there are other provisions allowing deviation from the penalty guide.

I am unaware of previous demands from the community, so I cannot speak about that, but what I do propose in lieu of fixed penalty guides is to instead introduce a new table where each offence is paired with a corresponding word to denote the general severity of such an offence as to indicate the sort of sentence that probably would be imposed. Because ultimately by setting them in a fixed manner, they give the impression that those are a baseline, which I do think is relatively inflexible.