And we’re BACK!
Our sincerest apologies for our lengthy absence, but a DST election, the removal of the Arb Board, and the resignation of the NST and SW RST have kept our Cam Lives quite busy! Sometimes there just isn’t time to work on a grand manifesto with all the changes going on around here. We promise to stay reinvigorated and finish up the next 5 steps in the coming weeks.
Anyway, on with the show…
Talking about the appeals process got people fairly fired up and the news about the Arb Board only seemed to intensify the discussion. Here’s our favorite comment from Step 5:
Thinking about sanctions, we can always take a page from our federal courts. Translated to the Cam, that means you’d risk sanctions if you do either of the following:
* You make an appeal or give information for an inappropriate purpose, such as delay and harrassment
* Your appeal is not based on an existing rule or a non-frivolous argument for the modification, extension or reversal of an existing rule or a non-frivolous argument for the adoption of a new rule.
Bascially, any time you waste people’s time for no good reason, you should be sanctioned. – Terrie
Awesome! We love the clear, concise guidelines. For those of you who wondered what players should be sanctioned for, look no further than Terrie’s awesome summary. Now…does anyone have a list of what STs should be sanctioned for?
*******************************************
It’s been more than a month since the original Step 5 post, but there is still plenty to clarify and review!
The Clearly Wrong Standard
We had a good deal of discussion about the need to reevaluate the current appeals system. Some people believe that even the “clearly wrong” standard is failing us:
I have been involved in appeals, both as an officer and as an appealing member. Both sides were awful. Why?
1. The club assumes that officers are doing their job well. Why does that make sense? Officers are just as likely to make mistakes as anyone else, and those mistakes are much more visible since they are making a lot more decisions of substance than the average member. Why are they presumed to be infallible? Why is the appealing member wrong until proven right? – PS
Eric C was ready with a solid analysis of why the “clearly wrong” standard is the only one that works:
PS,
1. The standard for reversal under our current system is that the decision must be “clearly wrong”. And while this is harsh and sometimes unfortunate, it is the only standard that will work. Any other standard become purely discretionary which only exacerbates some of the most critical problems with Appeals, namely the sheer number of them and the good ol’ boys network. We know that officers are fallible, the appeals system is a recognition of that. This the same standard that applies to the judicial decisions on appeal. Judgments rendered by a judge or jury must be clearly erroneous to be overturned. Any lesser standard invites chaos. – Eric C.
We totally agree with Eric. Many people forget that the reason we have an appeals system is for the very reason that PS describes. Officers are fallible and occasionally make mistakes! However, it’s vitally important that we empower STs to do their jobs and only reverse their decisions when they do something that is obviously against the rules AND had a significant impact on the game. Holding STs to any other standard will just paralyze them with fear…
How Sanctions Will Affect STs
In fact, some of our posters thought that sanctions would actually do exactly what we were trying to prevent…
…STs should never be subject to penalties for their decisions unless they were facilitating cheating. We want creative, spontaneous STs, not conservative rules hardliners who are afraid to actually do anything for fear of facing a disciplinary action. – Ben
We agree, Ben. We don’t ever want STs to face sanctions unless they’ve done something truly awful like facilitating cheating. In fact, we see sanctions as a tool that gives STs back their ability to be creative and spontaneous because players won’t appeal without fear of being punished for BS appeals.
The system right now doesn’t reward the kind of STs you are describing….
*******************************************
In closing,
Save the Cam will return with “Mandate Metrics that Matter” in the next 48 hours…
Since I borrowed from the standards for attorneys for my comments on sanctions for players, I will now borrow from the judicial code of conduct for STs. (Hey, I never claimed to be original).
Obviously, STs are going to operate under the same rules as players. But since they have mroe power, they should also have additional rules to see that they don’t abuse it.
*An ST should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous. Sometimes, there’s no one willing to take over if the ST is removed, so the ST takes advantage of this to tell players “My way or no game.” So there needs to be a solution besides removal for STs who in danger of becoming mini-dictators.
* An ST should respect and apply the rules. Obvious, but important. If an ST starts making calls willy-nilly, than it becomes easier to “accidently” favor one party over another.
*They should maintain the reality and apperance of impartiality. That means no favoring friends or family AND no allowing friends or family to imply that they are in a special position to influence the ST.
It’s easy to forget, but the rules exist to put everyone on a level playing field. Once you either start bending the rules, or allow even the apperance of favoring one group over another, you’re basically creating a “quid pro quo” situation that is detrimental to the game and the Cam as a whole. And the apperance of such a situation can be just as bad.
Emphasis on “Patient.” But we as players also need to be patient with the ST chain and provide it with good information so our STs can make informed decisions.
Glad to have you guys back. Keep up the good work.
Thanks! We are happy to be back. Stay tuned for Step 6 later today…
On equal footing with no favoritism, we need to avoid the reverse as well. People disliked can find rules going against them more often. Also, some people are fair-minded, but implement it poorly, and reverse discriminate in an effort to be fair.
Both are fairly common, and neither is good.
Just a point to emphasize one of Terrie’s.