Message 1 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Sat May  8 00:17:11 1993 PDT
From:     Grump (#122)
To:       *social-issues (#7233) and *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  arbitration

I'm working on a petition for a system of 'binding arbitration'. It's still a
draft, but I think it's ready for comments. read #50392 and then send mail to
*p:arbitration. Lots of the details aren't settled.
I think any system of justice needs a place for judgement (flexibility as to
what the response to a given situation should be) and responsibility (it's
clear who made what decision, and they're held accountable for those
decisions.)
Most of the current proposals for marking or banishment either don't have
enough room for judgement, or spread the responsibility for actions too
thinly.
At least, that's what I thought when I wrote this.

--------------------------


Message 2 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Sat May  8 02:26:19 1993 PDT
From:     Xiombarg (#37636)
To:       *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Yes!

I _loved_ this idea when it first came up on *soc; I almost created a registry
then and there. I think four months is good for someone to be eligible to be
an arbitrator; two months is too short, IMHO. I think 10 to overturn a ruling
and 20 to change the petition are good numbers; 5 is too low, it'd be too easy
for a group of friends to overturn descisions about themselves.
                       -Xi

--------------------------


Message 3 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Sat May  8 04:51:40 1993 PDT
From:     Praecox (#52694)
To:       *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Well, you said you wanted discussion:

I have a few questions, since I sometimes will go for months w/o reading *soc
and have consequently clearly missed some stuff.  It seems pretty clear in
general, but:

You mention that arbitrators who have a judgement reviewed should be barred
from arbitrating.  I think, but I'm not sure, that we might wanna drive a
wedge between putting a decision under review, and *overturning* it.  People
might think a judgement is inappropriate, but they'd have to really hear the
case, also.

Would arbitration happen in one session?  I assume that you, like me, think
something like this will work better the less legalistic it is.  Still I'd
like a clearer picture of what would be heard and presented in an arbitration,
how long it would be, etc.

Thanks, prae

You talk of arbitrators calling for any action in the MOO.  How would this be
implemented?  They tell a wiz what their decision is, and the wiz *has* to do
it?

--------------------------


Message 4 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Sat May  8 09:41:24 1993 PDT
From:     Miles (#50636)
To:       *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  questions

(1) Under a system of arbitration, what rights are reserved to a player?

     For example, does a player have the right to @eject someone from a room
that they own, without it being subject to review from an arbiter? (Hey,
Pondskum invited me to his room and I wasn't doing nothing and he ejected me!
Unfair! He teleported me against my will!).

(2) What are the rules? Should they be known in advance?

     For example, an RPG player idling in their own private room neglects to
lock the door. Pondskum comes in and kills them. A dispute between the two
players arises and an arbiter rules that Pondskum be given a written warning
that such behavior is unacceptable and a second offense may result in stronger
measures. However, Pondskum claims that he didn't break any rules and 'tis
allowed, even if some say it's underhanded. Would he not have a valid point?

----------------
    Miles

--------------------------


Message 5 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Sat May  8 11:25:50 1993 PDT
From:     Grump (#122)
To:       *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  I edited the petition based on the comments so far...

I madea a few changes based on the comments so far, mainly to settle on a few
things that weren't resolved before. I added some stuff about how it doesn't
really lay down any guidelines about manners (in response to Miles' question),
changed the residency requirement to 4 months, etc. If I don't get any more
suggestions in the next day or two, I'll start looking for signatures.

--------------------------


Message 6 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Sat May  8 11:44:42 1993 PDT
From:     edd (#54917)
To:       *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Some comments

I generally like the idea of arbitrators, though I have some
reservations and comments:

They seem to have no direct powers. Some direct powers might be useful
in a few situations, where immediate action is necessary to prevent
further harm. Liken arbitrators to judges and direct powers to an
injunction.

"Any other player can join in a dispute." This may make things
difficult with players joining in a dispute to back up their mates, to
confuse the issue and so on. I can see your point though.

As to the qualification for being an arbiter, I think that 2 months is
generally short, but a year is too long. Perhaps 3 or 4 months with
some discretion being allowed. See the comment on vetting later.

Conflict of interest is more complex than you imply. It would be
difficult for me to pass impartial judgement on certain people who
were not from my own site. Perhaps a register is in order here, or
maybe your review system would help.

I think that the automatic barring of arbitrators simply because a
decision was reviewed is wrong. A majority of arbitrators may decide
to remove an arbitrator, or a petition/ballot could be raised.

There MUST also be some vetting of who becomes an arbitrator above and
beyond volunteering. Mebbe wizards or maybe senior arbitrators, mebbe
wizards allow senior arbitrators, and seniors ordinary ones. Allowing
bad ones who are then barred is the wrong way round isn't it.

It is important though that this isn't a JHM/power-elite mechanism. It
must have the trust of the average MOOer to work!


--------------------------


Message 7 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Sat May  8 12:04:33 1993 PDT
From:     Grump (#122)
To:       *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  conflict of interest

The most important defense against conflict of interest is that the parties
involved in the dispute must AGREE on the arbitrator. The vetting requirements
are only there to deal with situations where they can't agree and someone is
selected for them. (I changed it from 'first volunteer' to make it 'chosen
randomly from arbitrators who had volunteered to hear the case within the 48
hour period.)
I'm reluctant to deal with issues that require 'direct powers': there are few
situations where @lock, @refuse, or @quit can't at least deal with the
situation for a 48 hour period. I suppose something like that could be added,
but I don't see the need right off hand.
To  I guess that, to simplify things, that joining a dispute doesn't mean that
you get to reject arbitrators. I changed the proposal to reflect that.

--------------------------


Message 8 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Sat May  8 12:26:05 1993 PDT
From:     Euphistopheles (#50222)
To:       *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  when ruling is overturned

Suppose I and several of my friends have been here over 4 months and have
volunteered to join the arbitrators. Then Grump, say, makes some ruling in
some case. Can my friends and I overturn it, for the illicit purpose of
removing Grump from membership?
I don't believe that 5 (or even more) self-selected arbitrators should have
the power to expel other members. I propose instead that an arbitrator can
call for a review of another's petition; then those two arbs, with say 4
others selected randomly from among volunteers, form a committee which can
vote to overturn the ruling, and possibly inflict some punishment on the maker
of the bad ruling.
The punishment part could be handled by the arbitration process itself, by one
arbiter invoking it against another.
Generally I think an arbitration mechanism is the right way to go, and I will
sign this even without the recommended improvement, if necessary.
yoof

--------------------------


Message 9 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Sat May  8 13:34:37 1993 PDT
From:     Mickey (#52413)
To:       *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Misc early feedback

I think the restrictions on arbitrators are too weak (in some places) and too
strong (in others).
I think being a good arbitrator is hard, and that we do both the arbitrator
and the Moo a disservice by barring arbitrators who have their decisions
overturned from ever being arbitrators again.
I would prefer to see a system in which arbitrators are temporarily barred
from arbitrating, until a hearing can be held on whether they should be
permitted to continue.  Some number of random citizens should sit on that
hearing--perhaps 12, since people seem to be used to that size of jury.  There
may be reasons to overturn a decision and still expect that the arbitrator
(and/or the citizenry) to learn from the situation.  I would like a decision
to keep the person as an arbitrator afterward be a matter of process, not a
matter of special-casing someone.
At the same time, I think that I don't want arbitrators to have unlimited
powers on the individuals involved.  One might get involved in a minor
dispute, and an arbitrator might make some decision that did not involve
others and yet was too severe.  I think we should start small with a specific
set of things that arbitrators could do for particular things, and then
elaborate gradually as the need occurs.
Your proposal for arbitration would likely help out in the nearterm because it
provides broad powers to people in a crisis situation (i.e., there are
virtually no laws right now), but in the long run I think it will lead to
strange, unpredictable, and uneven dispensation of punishment by different
arbitrators.  I, for one, would not like us to remain in the kind of crisis
situation we're in now, and I don't see the arbitration process, as stated,as
a way out.  With appropriate restrictions on its power, though, I see it as a
reasonable thing to augment another facility.
By the way, as an aside, I think you could usefully consider a system of
checks and balances wherein the arbitrator would issue a ruling, but another
agency would be responsible for carrying out the action.  That agency would
have the power, but would never act except as instructed by an arbitrator, so
it would be easy to tell when it did the wrong thing.  All of its power would
be through wiz-verbs that logged the action, so that it could do nothing
secretive to abuse its special powers.  Any action it took which was not
cross-referenced against an arbitration that instructed it would in itself be
a crime.  Then you could permit the enforcement agency to refuse (or hold up
or appeal) an action by an arbitrator that seemed out of line with the
offense, or that seemed out of line with similar rulings by other arbitrators
on similar matters  I don't know whether this checks&balances idea would be
enough to cover some of my concerns in the previous paragraphs; it's kind of
an afterthought I plan to mull more.

--------------------------


Message 10 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Sat May  8 13:59:51 1993 PDT
From:     Grump (#122)
To:       *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Mickey's comments

The safeguard against arbitrator's choosing actions that are 'too severe' is
the ability of other arbitrators to overturn a decision and disbar an
arbitrator. I modified the petition to make it a separate decision to overturn
a decision and to bar an arbitrator from deciding any more cases.  I don't
think that 'arbitration' will solve all possible MOO problems, but I don't
think that 'strange, unpredictable and uneven dispensation' is a problem here.
It doesn't deal with 'crimes against the state', just civil disputes.
As for checks and balances, I added a 24 hour delay between the decision and
its implementation. Certainly, all steps taken as a result of a decision
should be public, and not 'subject to abuse'.

--------------------------


Message 11 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Sat May  8 14:29:28 1993 PDT
From:     Grump (#122)
To:       *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  [Mickey (#52413):  civil disputes]

Date:     Sat May  8 14:26:52 1993 PDT
From:     Mickey (#52413)
To:       Grump (#122)
Subject:  civil disputes

I think any overturning should be done by a jury of randomly chosen citizens,
not of arbitrators.  That's for several reasons:  it keeps power from being
concentrated in a single place, and it keeps people from being able to predict
the outcome (as they might if, for example, they knew the space of
arbitrators, which will be smaller than the space of citizens), and finally it
makes the citizens periodically aware of how the decision-making process
operates, possibly leading to occasional corrective petitions by outsiders who
find themselves surprised at how this or that operation runs with
inappropriate safeguards.

The above point is critical to my support.  I continue to have the additional
reservations that I voiced before but would be content to pursue them
separately once your petition passes, and will sign your petition anyway if
you will fix this one point.

--------------------------


Message 12 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Sat May  8 20:46:56 1993 PDT
From:     Xiombarg (#37636)
To:       *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Expelling arbitrators

I fail to see why it should be possible to expel arbitrators at all. If some
arbitrator gets a bad rep, all eir rulings will get overturned and people will
stop asking for said arbitrator. This way, 10 people with a grudge can't bar
someone from being an arbitrator. Bad arbitrators just won't get named, and as
long as there are a good number of arbitrators, they're unlikely to get chosen
at random.
            -Xi

--------------------------


Message 13 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Mon May 10 00:22:35 1993 PDT
From:     Grump (#122)
To:       *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  ready for signatures

"After getting back ample comments on the petition from a number of people,
and modifying it accordingly, I'm going to start soliciting signatures. Please
sign the petition if you agree that this is a good system to have. It's
flexible enough to allow some changes without having to go through the
petition process again."

--------------------------


Message 14 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Mon May 10 09:56:58 1993 PDT
From:     Bakunin (#3553)
To:       *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Signing with misgivings

I will sign the petition, but I have some misgivings. I do not think
that 5 arbitrators are enough to overturn a decision; as others have
indicated, this makes it quite easy for a group of friends to overturn
and disbar an arbitrator who has acted fairly. I suggest the number
should be 15: also arbitrary, but less prone to abuse.

The executive mechanism is non-existent; using mail is not enough. We
should not need to rely on wizards to act upon decisions made by an
arbitrator, even at first. Postponing this crucial aspect of arbitration
makes it merely a formal mechanism for complaining to the wizards, and
relying on their good faith to enact specific rulings.

I think it is, in general, a fine idea. Don't think it necessarily
conflicts with my banishment proposal, either.

--------------------------


Message 15 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Mon May 10 10:41:52 1993 PDT
From:     Mickey (#52413)
To:       Bakunin (#3553) and *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Re: Signing with misgivings

I agree with Bakunin that 5 is way too few citizens to overturn an
arbitration.  The number must be bigger than the typical circle of close
friends that a person has.  His suggestion of 15 is an improvement.  However
the reason I had suggested a group of randomly chosen citizens (from among a
volunteer pool, if necessary) is that it reduces the possibility of collusion
and makes it possible to have a smaller number possible.  e.g., I'd be happy
if 5-8 people did the overturning if those people were randomly chosen after
someone appealed.  But if the people can be selected by the person who was
affected or some friend of that person's, then the number must be higher.
I guess for now I will take the proposal as "conservative", however, in that
it limits the power of arbitrators quite substantially.  And for that reason
I'm now willing to sign it and just put on my queue a note that it needs
amending by later petition once it passes.

--------------------------


Message 16 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Mon May 10 12:10:57 1993 PDT
From:     Arbitration (#50392)
To:       *Wizard-List (#6428), Grump (#122), and *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Request for vetting
Reply-to: Grump (#122), *Wizard-List (#6428), and *Petition:Arbitration
(#50392)

Grump, the author of Petition:Arbitration (#50392): `Arbitration', has
acquired 11 signatures on his petition and is submitting it to you, the
wizards, for vetting.  Please look it over and either
   1) type `approve #50392' to grant it your mark of approval
or 2) reply to this message explaining your reasons for refusing to do so.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

--------------------------


Message 17 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Mon May 10 13:25:08 1993 PDT
From:     Arbitration (#50392)
To:       Grump (#122), *Wizard-List (#6428), and *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Petition approved
Reply-to: *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)

The wizard Nosredna has granted her mark of approval to Petition:Arbitration
(#50392): `Arbitration'.

--------------------------


Message 18 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Tue May 11 00:29:53 1993 PDT
From:     Slochin (#49565)
To:       *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Manditory arbitration

I am concerned because the choice to go to binding arbitration does not
require agreement between both parties.  Here's an extreme scenario: I have a
disagreement with someone and then go on vacation.  When I return, I discover
that in my absence arbitration was invoked, an arbiter picked at random who
happend to be a friend of the plaintiff, and I was @toaded.  Too bad I can't
appeal.

Arbitration is a wonderful way to settle disputes, but it should be voluntary
on the part of the participants.  If they can't agree to arbitration, or to an
arbiter, then some heavier-weight mechanism that has more checks and balances
should be used.

      Slochin

--------------------------


Message 19 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Tue May 11 01:35:01 1993 PDT
From:     Grump (#122)
To:       *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  checks and balances

The main safeguard against Slochin's scenario is that it seems likely to be
able to find 5 players who believe that @toad-ing someone without hearing
their side of the story is unreasonable, and even 15 players who think such a
judgement is so unfair as to prevent the arbitrator from arbitrating again.

--------------------------


Message 20 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Tue May 11 01:49:12 1993 PDT
From:     Coco (#50040)
To:       *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  some concerns


I think that the petition for arbitration is for the most part well thought
out.  My concern is that it doesn't thoroughly address the issue of a possible
lynch mob.
Although I would love to believe that the motives of every arbitrator who
volunteers would be altruistic, I am apprehensive that they may occasionally
have ulterior motives.
My observation has been that regardless of site affiliation or length of
charactership, some characters "have it out" for others that dont reflect
there own value system.
I suspect that these characters might well volunteer for arbitration in the
hopes that they will get to @toad someone they dislike.
To a certain extent, allowing both parties to approve the arbitrators
alleviates this concern.  However, in my experience, hidden agendas exist on
the MOO.
I strongly feel that LambdaMOO life/death is a very sensitive issue, and hope
precautions are taken to avoid this potential situation.
-- Roo

--------------------------


Message 21 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Tue May 11 10:46:06 1993 PDT
From:     Tesser (#49838)
To:       *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Re: checks and balances

Slochin's scenario: what if he falls between the cracks?  No one publicizes
his case and the fact that he had no say in it, and he can't talk about it b/c
he's toaded.  Another person crushed under the wheels of justice?
I really think these arbitrator folks are too powerful, and will continue to
not support this petition.
-Tesser

--------------------------


Message 22 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Tue May 11 16:22:48 1993 PDT
From:     Grump (#122)
To:       *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Falling through the cracks

All actions -- cases, judgements, and their implementation, will be 'public'.
I'm assuming that means that those who care (including those affected by the
case, since there's a 24 hour delay between judgement and implementation) have
a chance to see. I'm sure there are lots of folks who don't want drastic
actions to go unpublicized, and there won't be any opportunity to hide.
I didn't want to plan too much about implementation of this, but I'm imagining
some kind of status board of cases, perhaps a mediation room, and a mailing
list where a record of everything that's happened in the past is kept.

--------------------------


Message 23 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Tue May 11 22:03:20 1993 PDT
From:     Ash (#49720)
To:       *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  laws...

Before we have a method of arbitration, do we not need at least some laws with
wich to arbitrate? If there are no rules to follow, and arbitration is a means
of solving a disagreement (and im not quite certain what sorts of
disagreements you are thinking of that cant be handled by gagging or refusing
the offender, but this couls be due to my non-existant social-interaction)
then it should be necessary for both sides to agree on putting the case up for
arbitration.
     Also, is there a server log of all actions for Lambda? (i know its
possible for the server, I'm wondering if that option is being used...) This
would make arbitration much easier, as otherwise the entire case will be based
on the word of the players involved.(not necessarily bad, but has the
potential to be)
     Just some thoughts...
          Ash

--------------------------


Message 24 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Tue May 11 22:06:31 1993 PDT
From:     Lambda (#50)
To:       Ash (#49720) and *Petition:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Re: laws...

The server does not maintain a log of all player actions or output.  Several
proposals for verified logs of what players saw printed to them have been laid
out on *social over the past few months, any of which could be implemented
entirely inside the database.

--------------------------


Message 25 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Wed May 19 10:43:42 1993 PDT
From:     Arbitration (#50392)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Open Ballot Ready for Voting

Petition #50392 has received enough signatures to transform it into open
Ballot:Arbitration (#50392): `Arbitration', which is now available for voting.
Type `read #50392' to see the text of the proposal and then `vote yes on
#50392' to cast your vote in favor of it, `vote no on #50392' to cast your
vote against it, or `abstain on #50392' to stop hearing about it.  Voting on
this ballot will close on Wednesday, June  2, at 10:43 am, LambdaMOO Standard
Time; until then, you can change your vote as often as you wish.  You can read
(and contribute to) commentary on this proposal on the mailing list named
*Ballot:Arbitration; type `help mail' for details.

--------------------------


Message 26 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Wed May 19 12:08:51 1993 PDT
From:     Slochin (#49565)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Vote no

Vote NO on ballot #50392.

This ballot calls for a system of binding arbitration to resolve disputes in
LambdaMOO.  While binding arbitration can be very effective when both parties
agree to use it, this ballot allows binding arbitration even if one party does
not agree.  Under this system, it would be possible for a player to be
subjected to arbitration from an arbiter they did not agree to, and then to be
banished.  Once banished, the player would have no way to use the review
process as they would have no way to communicate with the remaining LambdaMOO
residents.

Any legal system must have a way to resolve disputes with uncooperative
individuals.  However, this ballot gives insufficient protection to the rights
of such individuals.  The judgement is made by a single person instead of a
jury, and there is no formal appeals process.  It is reasonable to allow
people to waive these rights, and real-life arbitration is a mechanism for
this.  But the choice MUST be voluntary.

I have voted against this ballot, and urge you to do so as well.

        Slochin

--------------------------


Message 27 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Wed May 19 12:25:05 1993 PDT
From:     JoeFeedback (#2612)
To:       Slochin (#49565) and *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Re: Vote no

The requirement that the arbitrator write a summary, the 24-hour delay between
posting and execution of a decision, and the relatively simple provision for
overturning of a decision are intended to prevent unreasonable decisions by
arbitrators.  Presumably you could find five qualified people who think it's
not fair that Player_X didn't get to help choose an arbitrator.

This is useful mostly in the situation where Player_X was on vacation when
action was brought against em, and so wasn't aware of the case.  In the case
where Player_X was around, knew what was going on, and refused to participate
in the selection of an arbitrator, I really have a lot of trouble summoning up
any sympathy.  In the case where Player_X and Player_Y both honestly wanted
arbitration but couldn't find an arbitrator whom they both thought would be
impartial, you may have a point.  I don't foresee this coming up much, though.

--------------------------


Message 28 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Wed May 19 14:58:43 1993 PDT
From:     Quinn (#19845)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  arbitration

Well, seeing a how I am now gonna be bothered everytime I login about this
ballot I haven't voted on, I may as well make my feelings known.

I don't really care if y'all set up your cute little legal system.  I want one
right guaranteed to me -- I want ownership and control over the objects I have
created.

This means, if I am toaded, nobody can give Revenant to APHiD and shower my
RPG items amongst random GMs.  It means I can have them recycled if I wish.

If the community ejects me from the LambdaMOO, they're ejecting everything
I've contributed as well.

Anyway, this DOES have something to do with arbitration, although It should
probably be a seperate petition.

So, as those little fuzzy cartoon characters say, "If I can't take it with me,
I ain't goin'."

--Quinn (especially disjointed today)

--------------------------


Message 29 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Wed May 19 15:10:42 1993 PDT
From:     Wholeflaffer (#49822)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Quinn's stuff....

  I think Quinn has a point. He deserves to decide wheterh or not his stuff
is still used after he is reprimanded by @toad-ing. However, if it's not
permanent punishment, I can't see where the objection lies. No one can
touch it now, they certainly won't touch it if he is going to be off-line
for, say, 2 months or something. This issue, while not important enough to
halt any consideration of the arbitration, needs to be addressed if the
situation would arise where a prolific programmer pisses off the wrong
people!

Wholeflaffer

--------------------------


Message 30 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Wed May 19 15:14:56 1993 PDT
From:     Bloaf (#15550)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  arbitrator powers

I really think giving a single arbitrator the power to decide if a player gets
@toaded or @newted is way too extreme. I've been here for 3 years, and I don't
like the idea of some random 4-month-old player being able to decide that I
should be @toaded. I don't forsee myself being in this situation, but I'd
really much rather worry about being judged by a "jury of my peers" than a
single person.

--------------------------


Message 31 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Wed May 19 15:49:02 1993 PDT
From:     Firebrand (#50360)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Number of Arbitrators

Would it make the people who are unhappy with the current bill happy if there
were more than one arbitrator required for each case?  I think that maybe 2 or
three would make a better safeguard to the abuse of power by one person.
However a system
using 12 jurors would be very large and unwieldy for this type of environment.

--------------------------


Message 32 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Wed May 19 17:57:28 1993 PDT
From:     Grump (#122)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  @toading and other actions

I think a lot of the posters are constructing a scenario that just isn't going
to happen.
I (now) believe that @toad-ing someone or deleting their stuff for almost any
kind of activity is totally inappropriate, especially when there is some other
recourse available. I think it would be easy to find 4 other MOOers who would
agree. The reason, though, for giving the power to a single arbitrator is to
make it clear who is responsible for deciding. With juries, voting,
blackmarks, and other kinds of committee activities, it's easy to hide the
responsibility. A 'random 4-month-old player can decide that (someone) should
be @toaded' only if it is pretty much the consensus of the MOO.
There are others who have worried that it is TOO EASY to overturn a decision,
and that somehow people will 'get away' with things because they can get their
friends to protect them. I also think this is unlikely -- the process is
cumbersome, and those who bail out a friend once might be inclined to help
them stay in line the next time.
As for having a jury, or 2 arbitrators, well, then you'd need some kind of
system for voting and agreeing on decisions, etc, and you'd still need some
mechanism for reviewing whether the decision is reasonable.
The arbitrator is not a 'judge' and is not a 'jury'. The purpose is not to
'punish' someone who has committed a 'crime'. There are no crimes, there is no
punishment. There are disputes between players; arbitrators are empowered to
find some way to keep people from escalating their disagreements.

--------------------------


Message 33 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Thu May 20 02:06:20 1993 PDT
From:     Whyse (#52778)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Does it do what we want?

My feeling is that this petition is misdirected and cumbersom.  There are two
types of dispute: a dispute between two players, and a "crime" against the MOO
comunity.
I don't think it's the MOO's place to formally address the first case.  We do,
however, need a proceedure to adopt in the second case, and it is in this case
that the proposal is the least effective. A distructive user could cause a lot
of damage before any action could be taken under this proposal.
Thoughts?

--------------------------


Message 34 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Thu May 20 02:15:44 1993 PDT
From:     Spam (#37554)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Disorganized thoughts . .

I must admit that I also have minor quibbles with this proposed system, even
though I have voted for it.  I think the point is, however, that this is a
tangible, feasible system for addressing some of the problems we've been
having here, and for which a lot of us have been clamoring for quite a while
now.  So I voted for it, even though I don't fully 100% agree with every
single point in it.  If there are specific problems we have with it, we could
(by process of other petitions) change certain things.  I
(Sorry, my backspace just pooped out on me.)  Anyway - my thought is that a
vote for this system is a vote for A System, which we apparently desparately
need, and which may still be game for alteration.  I'd hate to see the chance
for a sound system slip away because of people like me, with minor points of
disagreement.

Spam (blithering)

--------------------------


Message 35 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Thu May 20 03:41:56 1993 PDT
From:     Quinn (#19845)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  desperation

We `desperately need' a system?  It seems to me no real problems have come up
since Bunglefest.
Maybe I should shut up before the order-freak who stirs up trouble hears me
and comes up with another obnoxious character to make use think we NEED a
system.

--------------------------


Message 36 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Thu May 20 03:54:19 1993 PDT
From:     Spam (#37554)
To:       Quinn (#19845) and *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Desperation

I guess I'd like to clarify my statements in message 34 (although this is
dubious at this hour) regarding 'desperately need[ing]' a system of handling
unpleasant stuff here.  Please note the word 'apparently' preceding
'desparately'.  While I very rarely buy into utilitarianism, I voted for this
proposal because there seems to be an overwhelming (or at least vocal) desire
for some sort of system.  For the sake of clarifying my own position, I
frankly don't spend enough time here anymore to personally see t
(ARGH - backspace etc fking up again) Anyway - I just don't spend enough time
here anymore to foresee the need for any system for my personal 'protection',
aside from the fact that I prefer dealing with specific irritants in my own
way.  But I see that a lot of other people want a system, and the existence of
one wouldn't adversely affect me, and this seems like an okay proposal.  So.
Does this clarify things?  Somehow I doubt it . .

Spam (tired)

--------------------------


Message 37 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Thu May 20 08:07:02 1993 PDT
From:     jerico (#34983)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  a few thoughts

ok a few passing thoughts.

1: any chance of some selection procedure for arbitrators, perhaps a
note from them, displayed in a public place, stating that they are
volenteering, and reasons for doing so?
it occured to me that if an arbitrator has to be picked, but the arbitrator
can't be biased then we have to pick an unknown arbitrator? or did i read
the petition wrongly? ho hum.
the list of arbitrators would allow the arbitratees (?) to make an
informed choice of arbitrator.

2: this system of arbitration may work very well, as long as we don't see
the change from:
the wiz's being slagged of for 'bad decisions' to the arbitrators being
slagged! fair point?
plenty of announcements should hit the MOO before each 'judgement'
so that everyone who wants their 2 penneth worth gets to say their piece
before the final decision
otherwise, as I suggested, all that will happen is a transfere of power,
with no improvement in the judicial system. A good thing, but perhaps not
what we are aiming for ideally.

ok thats my little say. Poorly constructed though it is, i hope you managed
the get the jist of what i meant.

Jerico.

--------------------------


Message 38 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Thu May 20 10:52:55 1993 PDT
From:     Karl (#49702)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Why I voted No

1) I'm with Whyse in that I feel that this petition does not address the
situations which we have problems with.  I myself find the concept of an
arbitrator dealing in personal conflicts repugnant; who made it the
arbitrator's business to interfere?  The real situations that have got to be
addressed are people like Mr. Bungle ... that was not a "dispute between two
players" but, instead, a dispute between the MOO as a collective body, and one
who went against our entire "moral fabric" so to speak.

2) Someone once pointed out to me that in any society that is progressing
towards dictatorship of some sort, individual rights are _not_ the first to
go.  Instead, it is _collective_ rights that get crushed under tyranny.  Under
Stalin's Russia, one could have any opinions you wanted, just as long as you
didn't attempt to spread them to a group, or take part in any group action.
Not to say we're degenerating into dictatorship (Far from it!) but this
proposal does not leave enough room, in my opinion, for the collective to
voice its opinions.

I am placing my backing behind a far more general and collective petition.  I
feel that this one does not represent a way of dealing with problems on our
MOO, but simply erects arbitrators to deal with personal conflicts that nobody
really wants arbitrated.  I am backing Bakunin's Petition, which I suggest you
all take a look at.

Of course, even were this ballot to pass, the result would be that nobody
actually calls arbitrators for the things that are important.

--------------------------


Message 39 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Thu May 20 13:26:30 1993 PDT
From:     Xiombarg (#37636)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  um....

The point of arbitration is that "collective" action is very difficult in a
situation where people connect and disconnect at different hours of the day
and only some of which give a flying rat's bum about the way the MOO is
governed. Arbitration is a safe, useful way to deal with situations in an
individualized manner without becoming autocratic. It is only punitive when it
needs to be. Usually, a good stern talking to by someone with power is enough
to stop behavior.
Quinn, whether you like it or not, some sort of system is going to come about
because too many people on this MOO go wild in an anarchistic system. This is
not a problem with anarchy (which I like), but with the fact that in our
control-freak society, people think the only reason to respect others is
'cause the police says so, so when there isn't any police, they think they
shouldn't be required to respect anyone else.
Abritration is a more humane, less autocratic, and more flexible system than
its current rivals, banishment and blackmarking. I urge everyone to vote YES
to this ballot because of flexibility alone, if for no other reason. Also, it
lets thoe of you who DO respect rights exist by yourself without anything
untoward happening just because someone's pissed at you, unlike the other two
systems, which are open to abuse.
DO NOT VOTE AGAINST THIS SYSTEM JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK IT IS IMPERFECT -- NO
SYSTEM IS PERFACT! If you think that there is a perfect system, make a
petition about it. Otherwise, understand that this is an excellent system,
well deserving of support, and one that is capable of EVOLVING, which is a big
bonus in my book.
               -Xiombarg

--------------------------


Message 40 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Thu May 20 16:33:58 1993 PDT
From:     Karl (#49702)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Xiombarg and the Art of Campaigning

> Arbitration is a safe, useful way to deal with situations in an
individualized manner without becoming autocratic.
> It is only punitive when it needs to be. Usually, a good stern talking to by
someone with power is enough to stop
> behavior.

Xiombarg, who claims to like anarchism (and then goes on to advocated a `good
stern talking to by someone in power!') has totally misrepresented the point
here.  The idea isn't that "NO SYSTEM IS PREFACT" (shout it loud enough and
the whole world will vote for it, Xiombarg) but that this proposal totally
_avoids_ the issue at hand, and attempts to deal with an _unrelated_ and
_unimportant_ issue.

When we are talking about Mr_Bungles, or Dr_Jests, or pans, or wiz bit hacking
Quinns, we are not talking about "disputes between players" -- neither
Mr_Bungle, nor legba nor Starsinger were interested in arbitration to solve
their difficulties -- no wizard could have intervened and solved the "personal
conflict" -- this was not a dispute between players, but an abusive,
destructive person who does not belong in our community.

The issue that we are supposedly trying to go after by producing "systems of
justice" on this MOO is exactly that: how to deal with abuse.  We, as a
community, can NOT deal with personal disputes.  That is none of our
collective business.

Our duty as a community is to prevent the abuse of that community, not to
arbitrate other people's personal lives.  I can guarantee you that neither
SamIAm nor I would have called an arbitrator back when we weren't getting
along, for the simple reason that it was our business, and our business only.

If we want to get rid of people like Mr_Bungle, the way to do it is not to try
to "arbitrate."  You can't "arbitrate" an abuse creator like Mr_Bungle.

--------------------------


Message 41 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Thu May 20 17:08:17 1993 PDT
From:     Xiombarg (#37636)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  kill 'em all

I think arbitration can and _will_ handle people like Mr. Bungle. Such people
won't show up for arbitration and are usually obvious problems.
What I was addressing was those on the other side of the fence, people worried
about abuses of the least abusive system proposed so far.
Any system will handle _extreme_ cases like Mr. Bungle. It's the in-between
problems that accidentally get magnified out of preportion that arbitration
handles.
If arbitration _doesn't_ meet the needs of the community in terms of
bloodlust, wht system does? As far as I can tell, blackmarking is too unwieldy
and banishment is too arbitrary. I'm tired of people complaining that a system
is imperfect and then not bothing to make any suggestions of their own, which
is why I shouted. (My apologies to anyone whose virtual ears were hurt.) If
you care enough to vote a perfectly servicable system down, you should care
enough to make one of your own, since it is obvious that many people think
some sort of system should be in place.
         -Xiombarg
P.S. Route all flames about typos to alt.flame, eh? Not everyone has a fancy
client...

--------------------------


Message 42 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Thu May 20 17:40:24 1993 PDT
From:     Wholeflaffer (#49822)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Xiomborg's ideas about arbitration

  The mail from Xiomborg, I believe, encapsulates my feelings about the whole
idea of arbitration. What I believe Karl and other's are missing is that there
is widespread abuse around the Moo of simple manners that I think was not as
bad of a problem before the "new Moo Order" was put into effect.  I have been
on Lambda for one year, and I certainly did not se as much stupidity before. I
agree with Xiomborg that a person(s) with some powers is very important. The
other system of a few wizards with almost com- plete power was not what the
Moo needed, and I applaud Haakon and his "re- forms". The arbitration will not
be the same ass the wizards because, like the U.S. Justice system, they are
reactive. They react to complaints by the citizens of the Moo and as was said,
a frivilous complaint can be turned down foe arbitration.

  This reactive element is the strongest point to the arbitration idea.  The
citizens of the Moo need to be protected in some way from the bozos on this
moo and the arbitration idea will go far in providing that protection.

--------------------------


Message 43 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Thu May 20 17:46:52 1993 PDT
From:     Karl (#49702)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Protection from Bozos on this MOO

I don't see arbitration as a protective measure at all.  I see it as a piece
of text that does not even address that problem, let alone provide a solution.
It deals with conflicts between two people, not abuses of the moo community as
a hole.


--------------------------


Message 44 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Thu May 20 18:13:08 1993 PDT
From:     Dicky (#52630)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Waiting..

    This will only apply to some people, I'm sure they will know who I'm
talking about.  I have heard a lot about what's wrong with the arbitration.  I
for one would like to heard how those individuals would change the system.  If
your not part of the solution you most likely, are part of the problem!  Lets
see how we can make it work.  To the people that this was not directed
towards, thank you for your time!

Dicky

--------------------------


Message 45 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Thu May 20 18:25:56 1993 PDT
From:     Wholeflaffer (#49822)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Abuses of the Moo Community

  Maybe if I understood your position better, Karl, I could understand
why you don't think arbitration will hava a bearing on these problems. Say
I have a character who is repeatedly harrassing me and a greoup of friends.
I @eject, @gag, @secure, etc. this person until I'm blue in the fac. They
then proceed to spread rumours about me all over the Moo (this is not that
farfetched, either. I've seen it done to friends of mine). What is there
to do now? I can do nothing at this present time. If arbitration is in affect
I can complain to an arbitrator or whatever mechanism is set up. This
person is called before the arbitrator, and is reprimanded accordingly. I
think @toading is way too harsh for this situaiton, but a lock on the
character is justified, if for a finite period of time. That is how I
believe the arbitration system will work. I can't see how this does not
address the problems IO have seen on this Moo. Maybe you can extrapolate
on oyur objections....

--------------------------


Message 46 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Thu May 20 18:55:47 1993 PDT
From:     Quinn (#19845)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Dopes

I think I would support this petition if we barred those who've committed
MOO-suicide from being arbitrators.

I believe the act of recycling oneself (or worse, making a wizard do it), is
the ultimate expression of virtual apathy.  These people don't CARE what
happens here, and they don't value their existence in our society.

Sure it doesn't -hurt- anyone else, unless they own some popular or valuable
generics.  But most of those who've had themselves recycled are incompetent
programmers who simply exist here to spout rabid rhetoric.

People who don't care shouldn't control the fate of those who DO.

--Quinn (hey, at least I pointed out a security hole!)

--------------------------


Message 47 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Thu May 20 19:00:26 1993 PDT
From:     Orange (#49888)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  "...abuses of the moo community as a hole."  -- Karl

   Sorry, I had to point that one out. It is the perfect Freudian for this
argument.

   Anyway, to the subject at hand. This'll probably be all I have to say on
the matter, for the duration. I've already voted, and so far no one's managed
to sway my yes vote. Not even affect it, really.
   I have seen a lot of petty, stupid, little battles on the moo since I've
been here. I have, fortunately, never been a part of any of them. These are
the largest problem on the MOO, so far as I can see. They make people unhappy,
and those people leave, some going so far as to recycle themselves. They are
characteristic of the MOO environment. The Mr._Bungles and such are a
deviation that doesn't happen that often. And when it does, they make a lot of
noise and then <poof> they're gone. They are Very easy to spot, making it very
easy for an arbitrator or even just a moocop to find and deal with. They have
no grey area about them.
   The arbitration is a good way of dealing with that yammerhead who posts
flames on *smut and finally manages to piss you off. They're a way of dealing
with the moron who keeps trying to blow you into the next room with a plasma
cannon. Petty, stupid things that make life unpleasant. Beleive it or not,
such things are hard to arbitrate, hard to be sure about, and make life
unpleasant, not just for those involved, but for every poor bystander who gets
spammed out of the living room by the idiocy of it all. If you don't need an
arbitrator to solve these problems, fine! Don't call one then. Other people
feel the need for something to back them up.
   And last, certainly not least, this system gives and equal chance to the
accused to say their part.

   But, vote, or not, as you please. Personally, I don't think that it's a
sign of societal health that people feel the need to be protected from each
other. But hey, we're Americans, most of us. Guess that says a lot.

Orange, the endlessly prattling in meaninglessness.

--------------------------


Message 48 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Thu May 20 19:35:38 1993 PDT
From:     Karl (#49702)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  In Reply to Wholeflaffer

I have one reply to make, and that is simply: Why should we set up an
arbitration system to deal with _your_ personal problems.  That's _your_
problem, and you can deal with it yourself.  I would be damned upset if the
government In Real Life decided to set up "arbitrators" to deal with people's
personal conflicts.

As for you, Dicky, let me explain myself again: this piece of text does not
address the _right_ problem in the first place!  why should we have to present
alternatives when the very question that this text answers is flawed?  If you
mean alternatives in the way of making the MOO a more democratic and safe
place, take a look at Bakunin's petition, which, I think, answered the right
question (even if the implementation is flawed in some respects.)

And I would also like to point out that we shouldn't allow known criminals
such as Quinn to participate in any justice system.  Anyone who delibarelty
hacks wizbits shouldn't even be on the system, let alone participating in its
democratic system.

--------------------------


Message 49 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Fri May 21 05:35:28 1993 PDT
From:     FloYd (#50293)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Too much..

Interesting question that, whether Quinn is a goodie or a baddie.
There will always be people who dig a bit deeper. If most are happy just
playing by the rules - great. But the innovations often come from those
with greater understanding and more creative thought. Now, I'm not expressing
any opinion about what Quinn did. I know NOTHING about it except that he
apparently hacked a wiz bit, but I ask you.. where would all your
wonderful MUDs come from without the techies?
Anyway, my point it to blur the line between what is and isn't acceptable.
This *ISN'T* real life. There are no wiz-bits in real life. What applies
here doesn't necessarily reflect the real world.
Everyone is so worried about proctecting their precious rights.
Remember that this is all just for fun and I personally wouldn't
enjoy having to go through an arbitrated dispute with all its
associated ill-feeling.
I would probably stop using the MUD instead. This is an option that
you all have. Even if you were the subject of an unfair arbitration
then you have no 'legal' right to redress. Not in the real world. There
aren't any laws stating that people have to be fair in MUDs.
Start facing reality folks and *deal* with the fact that there are
arseholes out there who would happily annoy the hell out of you.
The solution is not a government or laws or arbitration.
The solution (if you really feel that you're unable to deal with these
people) is to make it impossible for them to do what their doing.

Back to reality...
                    FloYd

--------------------------


Message 50 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Fri May 21 06:57:21 1993 PDT
From:     jerico (#34983)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  UG?

A reply to Quinn.
i don't believe that quinn has a valid point here at all, not as if it is
relevent to the discussion, but anyway, I refere to recycling your character.
I've never had to do this, or do I want to, but just consider it the ultimate
face-lift.
people seem to recycle their characters to escape from a (or some) assholes
who are being a pain in the butt. I don't consider that a sign of not caring,
just of giving up. La difference sir!

a reply to Karl.
you seem to feel that Quinn should have no part in this discussion, because he
is a known 'convict'. Don't you feel it would be a cute move to at least allow
him the chance to behave before you judge him? ie he ain't f**ked up yet, why
believe he will? That after all is the true mark of justice, no prejustice.

Please, accept this as the ravings of a drunk, a few pints at lunch time, and
I'll take on the world!
ok, 3 pints, but I still enjoy a good barney!

not really. honest guv.

Jerico!

--------------------------


Message 51 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Fri May 21 09:31:51 1993 PDT
From:     Grump (#122)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  squabbles

I've been told that this petition/ballot is a disaster, that it will just lead
to people using it as a way to amplify their squabbles, that allowing
arbitrators access to site information is abhorant, that the 48 hour time
period for allowing people to log in and participate in the choice of an
arbitrator is way to small, and that the '30 person to change' provision will
lead to endless sloshing back and forth of 30-person-groups countermanding
each other's revisions.
I think those who have told me these things are too shy to express them
publicly so vehemently, but their opinions are strongly-held.
I'm not sure whose point is more strongly enforced by the baiting and personal
attacks on this mailing list: will the same people use arbitration as a way of
'getting at' their enemies? Or is arbitration a calming force, while a system
of blackmarks and whitemarks would make MOO into an enormous game of
stones-on-a-board. I do find it (once again) dismaying.

--------------------------


Message 52 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Fri May 21 09:35:11 1993 PDT
From:     Dicky (#52630)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Personal conflicts....

        The governments in real life did decide to set "arbitrators" to deal
with peoples personal conflicts.  In most democratic systems/societies, it's
called the judical system of one kind or another.  This system seem to
creating a very tense atomosphere here on LambdaMOO.  I wish the best to the
people putting this together.  Lets keep in mind, this will not set well with
everyone, including myself on all aspects.  The over all good of the MOO is
what needs to be thought of!  The "Wheels" are in motion!!
...LEAD....FOLLOW....OR GET THE BLOODY HELL OUT OF THEIR WAY!!!
         Folk I've been just sitting around listen to everyone on the MOO in
general, and for a moment or two I thought was I back in 9th grade or
something.  (I'm not refering to these post's, I refering to out and about the
MOO.)  Let just work together!  It don't matter which side your on, in fact it
takes at least two different sides to make it work correctly most of the time.
Think a little before you comment sometimes, it'll make a world of
difference....

Dicky

--------------------------


Message 53 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Fri May 21 09:36:16 1993 PDT
From:     FloYd (#50293)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  re squabbles

> Or is arbitration a calming force, while a system of
> blackmarks and whitemarks would make MOO into an enormous game of
> stones-on-a-board. I do find it (once again) dismaying.

MOO *IS* just a game.

FloYd

--------------------------


Message 54 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Fri May 21 09:57:05 1993 PDT
From:     Opal (#49755)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Hm

Well, I have not yet come to a final decision about this petition, but right
now my vote would lean towards no.  I have a couple of problems with the
petition as I see it.
I am not a bleeding heart, in fact far from it.  However, I have to wonder
what EXACTLY this ruling would do.  Is it punishment that we are seeking, or
is it rehabilitation?  I realize that there are instances when punishment is
absolutely necssary, for example, when someone like MrBungle is pulling his
stunts.  But binding arbitration might not leave room for any kind of
rehabilitation or review.  Even a delay period between the 'sentence' and the
carrying out  of said sentence might not be what is needed.
If we are interested in binding punishments, then perhaps this is best.  But
if what we want is something that will give the person a chance to change, or
to improve his behavior, then maybe something like mediation would be better.
As I see it, people are 'afraid' of the power that is going to go to the
arbitors.. I can't say that I blame them.  I personally don't see a problem,
but since anyone can be an arbitor, it does make me feel a tad bit
uncomfortable.  Mediation, and mediators, on the other hand, would not need
site info or extra power.  It's also not a matter of 'judgement' in that case
either, it is a way to help the players reach some sort of concensus on
something. (Okay, I've been at Bryn Mawr and Haverford for too long, so sue
me...I think it works.)
Anyway, in the extreme cases of toading, there is no way to reverse a decision
without a heck of a lot of trouble and such.  And even though there will be a
number of people involved in the process from start to finish, people are
HUMAN and will make mistakes, and will take sides.  in the case of MrBungle,
people would probably have toaded him whether they said they were unbiased or
not.  Does this allow for a fair chance for everyone?

Opal

--------------------------


Message 55 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Fri May 21 10:27:29 1993 PDT
From:     edd (#54917)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  My thoughts (For what they're worth).

1. LambdaMOO is NOT a GAME.        (Floyd)
2. LambdaMOO is NOT a BIG PROGRAM. (Quinn)
3. LambdaMOO is an iteractive system.

MOO allows us to reach out an touch other real people, given that each
of us is real in some sense to begin with. Some of those real people
being real people will hit people, instead of just touching them.
Being hit hurts, especially if it reminds you of being hit before,
perhaps having been hit like that IRL. These people need protecting.
It is all very well for Quinn to say he can deal with any situation and
why does he need arbitration? Most people do not know MOO as well as
Quinn (thank god, how many hacked wiz bits can we stand?). Most people
will be vulnerable to attack by more powerful programmers.

There are supposedly 3 levels of power here: wizards, programmers and
players. Most regular visitors are programmers, so most people have
the same powers, which are offensive and defensive. The problem with
equal power is that those who know how to wield it best will victimise
those who have little ability in using it. This is not how a civilised
group of people organise themselves. We can no longer rely on "mummy
wizard" to come and settle our petty squabbles, there are too many of
us. We need (or most of us seem to want) some system to deal with
them. The question is what system.

I support Grump's. Imperfect though it is, it can be modified and it
is the best I have seen. If you want another make the effort and write
a petition. You don't have to be PE, you don't even have to be a
programmer, you don't even have to have quota left. Don't just knock
somebody's system get on and change it for the better!

There's a whole load of talk about Haakon (or mebbe Lambda if he
really has the two hats) black mark system. I haven't seen any
detailed description of this in any form. Can someone please enlighten
us?

For the record I have seen one very upset (real) person @recycle
themselves. It shouldn't happen to anyone, least of all the people who
do it. They seem to be vulnerable. Not everyone enjoys logging in and
fighting for their virtual lives.....

As for Jonny and the domain info. Ironic isn't it, it was done for the
irony, wasn't it? As for trusting the wizzes. If you don't trust a
wiz, @recycle! It says as much in help security (read it Quinn? :)
Many people don't hide behind their MOOcharacters, I reveal all my
site info for instance. (So flame me at home). The day I don't trust
one of the wizzes on any of the MOOs I use not to abuse the info they
have on me I'll get out.

As for @toading Mr.Bungle. Can everybody remember what went on in
those few days? I remember a lot of heartache, a lot of arguing
followed by a unilateral decision by a wizard which was heavily
criticised. We are going through this whole thing because the
BrynMawr/Haverford concensus doesn't work here (even if it works
there).

Sorry for the length of this post. I just get kinda angry sometimes.

edd the duck


--------------------------


Message 56 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Fri May 21 14:05:24 1993 PDT
From:     Archer (#52775)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Settling

I, for one, would like to point out that it seems that many people are
settling on this issue, and voting for it simply because it came up as
a ballot.  The prevailing attitude seems to be that any system is better
than no system at all.  I do not believe that this is true.  I think before
anyone makes up their mind to vote 'yes' or 'no' on this ballot to read
all of the other competing petitions.  I think someone mentioned the fact
that they had not read Lambda's petition.  The *complete* list of petitions
is accessible through '@petitions all'.  I hope that people are making an
informed choice, rather than voting on everything that comes up when they
login.

--------------------------


Message 57 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Fri May 21 15:02:06 1993 PDT
From:     Xiombarg (#37636)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Opal's objection

I always saw arbitration as a form of rehaibilitation, with a sting behind it
if it were needed. I think that's what the system has a potential to be, and
that's why I'm voting for it.
             -Xi

--------------------------


Message 58 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Sat May 22 06:15:59 1993 PDT
From:     Dicky (#52630)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  In General..

If both parties would give an *arbitrator* a chance to work things out, An
arbitrator can work wonders.  Some people just don't take things the way we
meant it.  There will alway be someone who needs some work on their
interpersonal communication skills.  I believe that a lack of IPC skills is
the real villian here!!
Dicky

--------------------------


Message 59 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Sat May 22 12:58:38 1993 PDT
From:     Mickey (#52413)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Why I didn't vote for this

For what it's worth, I finally voted No on this because I didn't feel that the
rights of someone who didn't show were preserved.  Without a provision to
assure that the person even knew that s/he was on trial, and without some
provision to request in advance that something other than arbitration be used,
I don't think the procedure is fair.  Arbitration (or any non-jury system) is
only reasonable when both parties agree, and this proposal is not biased
toward making that be so.

I think every Moo citizen should have a right to a trial by a jury selected at
random from a set of volunteers.  Anything less may be expedient, but is not
fair.  If the jury system were in place, I think it might make a stronger
motivation for someone to submit to simple arbitration to save time and
hassle.  But without it, I don't see why anyone accused of anything would
agree to it, and I don't agree with just forcing this kind of justice on
someone who doesn't agree.

Desperate need for a system of justice is no excuse for injustice.

By the way, before we go to a trial system or perhaps even to a set of laws, I
think we should begin by defining what people's rights and responsibilities
are in an abstract way.  I think it should be possible for people to know that
they are conducting themselves in a way that puts them at no risk of any of
this.  I don't think they should have to duke it out in court just because
someone was too lazy to define any Bill of Rights.

My apologies to Grump, since I'd previously said I'd try to go ahead and sign
it and just amend it later.  But I really think this objection is an issue of
fundamental rights and not just a procedural tweak.  So when it got to putting
my name on the line, I couldn't do it.

If arbitration were made to be something that could not be compelled, and was
only a voluntary thing, that might eliminate my concern about the lack of a
Bill of Rights.

--------------------------


Message 60 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Sat May 22 15:13:18 1993 PDT
From:     Grump (#122)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  voting

I agree that it would be really unfair to be stuck into an arbitration without
even knowing about it, but I'm presuming that we won't tolerate people being
'punished' without their being aware of it.
Much of what I believe to be misconceptions about 'justice' here stem from
people trying to believe that MOO somehow is 'different', is not part of 'real
life' and that thus we have to establish fundamental principles. Your rights
on LambdaMOO stem from, and are derived from, your right to connect to the
internet and use it to talk to others, whether on LambdaMOO, over netnews, or
by email. We can't independently legislate those rights; we can only interpret
how they apply in the local context: within MOO, how do we play the conflict
between one player's rights to 'freedom of speech' and another player's rights
to 'freedom from harassment'.
As for 'laws', I don't think we need a separate method for enforcing them. If
someone spoofs and no-one cares, should we still invoke the 'law' against
'Don't spoof'?
I wouldn't mind some mechanism for changing/extending/modifying 'help manners'
that allows people to contribute what THEY expect in terms of mannerly
behavior here; not as a binding set of laws that some jury would enforce, but
rather, a way members of the community can register their general expectations
of how they want to be treated. Perhaps PatGently's petition to revise 'help
manners' could be extended to have some mechanism for growing or modifying it
over time.
If we had a 'help manners' that was clearly a community consensus, we might
then expect the community to respect it, and arbitrators to be able to refer
to it in their deliberations.
In any case, I still think the arbitration system outlined here is worth a
try, but you don't have to apologize to me if you vote against it.

--------------------------


Message 61 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Sun May 23 13:29:12 1993 PDT
From:     Tarod (#48579)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Hmm, interesting...

I just read 60 messages on this list in a row so excuse me if I miss some
vital point. 8+)

There are obviously some catagories of situations that should be defined and
guidelines in place for any one masochistic enough to agree to be an
arbitrator.  Laws for MOO is too silly but some guidelines are in order.

So, what kind of situations are likely to come up?  Hmmm, I'll give it a
stab..

Technical disruptiveness:  Doing something like hacking yourself a wiz-bit and
using it to shag something up.  Would this type of thing be handled by an
arbitrator at all or by a wiz?

The Puppy Dog Principle:  If a puppy does something on the rug, you rub it's
nose in it as per local lore.  If someone is persistantly obnoxious perhaps a
duration of time without moo-access would be appropriate.  I don't know about
@toad/@newt but something that just won't allow the character to connect
untill a certain date.

Personality Conflicts:  This town isn't big enough for the two of us type of
thing.  Would people be able to use this arbitration process for every little
argument?

Emotional Messes:  Someone is upset and there are a bunch of people taking
sides.  Again, is this a thing for an arbitrator to handle?

Perhaps some guidelines as what can be arbitrated or not should be around.
Common sence isn't very common after all.

Personally, I wouldn't ever want to get involved with the whole business,
sounds like a job without compensation.  I would tend to play the part of the
Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, "Off with their heads!". 8+)

Is arbitration needed?  Probably not, but it would enhance the feeling of
being in a virtual reality.

I vote yes just so it can be tried, if it doesn't work out then it can be
scrapped later.

Tarod

--------------------------


Message 62 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Sun May 23 16:03:02 1993 PDT
From:     Quinn (#19845)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)

>Technical disruptiveness:  Doing something like hacking yourself a wiz-bit
> and using it to shag something up.  Would this type of thing be handled by
> an arbitrator at all or by a wiz?

`...and using it to shag something up...'

Hey I dig that qualifier.  You can have a wizbit as long as you don't mess
with anyone/thing.  That's always been my stance.

>I vote yes just so it can be tried, if it doesn't work out then it can be
> scrapped later.

I voted No because I hate social structure and I got sick of getting that
CHOOSE OR LOSE message every time I connected.

--Quinn

--------------------------


Message 63 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Sun May 23 16:13:23 1993 PDT
From:     JoeFeedback (#2612)
To:       Quinn (#19845) and *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)

>  I voted No because I hate social structure and I got sick of
>  getting that CHOOSE OR LOSE message every time I connected.

You're probably aware that you can `abstain on <ballot>' if you just want to
avoid those messages, but others may not be, so I thought I'd clear that up.

--------------------------


Message 64 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Sun May 23 19:55:16 1993 PDT
From:     Jean-Luc (#56296)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Peer Pressure

After reading note 46 on the kitchen fridge, I was reminded of how powerful
peer pressure can be.  I can't help thinking that this informal and yet
inevitable social control is more efficient and more responsive to
unacceptable behavior than a more formal system ... at least in a virtual
reality like this.

--------------------------


Message 65 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Mon May 24 12:07:09 1993 PDT
From:     Bloaf (#15550)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Re: voting

Grump says in message 60:

I agree that it would be really unfair to be stuck into an arbitration without
even knowing about it, but I'm presuming that we won't tolerate people being
'punished' without their being aware of it.

The thing that bugs me here is "but I'm presuming that we won't
tolerate"..people have been presuming a lot of things lately. You can't just
assume that your morality inflicts the rest of the MOO. This ballot is FAR too
vague about many issues, and is designed to 'enforce' laws or ideals which
aren't even clearly stated anywhere. It's like having a police force but no
laws for them to enforce. Maybe if people were made aware of just what is and
isn't acceptable there'd be less of a need for arbitrators and the like. As
far as personal squabbles go, I don't even think arbitration is the answer.
Offending someone isn't a crime. Verbally assaulting them is, but there's no
distinction made here.
Hrm. I'm losing my train of thought. In any case, I'm just wary of this whole
system.

--------------------------


Message 66 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Mon May 24 17:53:54 1993 PDT
From:     Xiombarg (#37636)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Bloaf's complaint

I think there are at least 5 moral people on the MOO. I don't think that's
overly optimistic. That's enough to prevent problems.
             -Xi

--------------------------


Message 67 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Tue May 25 02:09:43 1993 PDT
From:     Ash (#49720)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  moral people...

only if those five are arbitrators...

--------------------------


Message 68 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Tue May 25 12:07:02 1993 PDT
From:     Bloaf (#15550)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Re: Bloaf's complaint

Well, perhaps there are 5 moral people on the MOO. But will there *always* be
five moral arbitrators who will care enough to reply within 24 hours? Maybe
so, but it can't be guaranteed. If the two people involved aren't well-known,
the whole case might blow by without anyone even stopping to take a look. As I
said, this system presumes far too much, and the entire thing is incredibly
vague; nothing is clearly stated.

--------------------------


Message 69 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Tue May 25 12:51:46 1993 PDT
From:     Wholeflaffer (#49822)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  A challenge....

  I have heard a lot of complaint about the whole idea of arbitration that
has been presented. The complaints I have agreed with...their are problems
with the system as it is proposed. However, the system can be changed.
That's what I thought the whole idea of this mailing list was, to discuss  the
propasal of an arbitration system. I have heard people say that they will not
vote for it because of this vagueness here or that inequity there. Well, let's
work on it! This system CAN be changed in ways that I believe will make it all
that better. Why chuck out the whole shooting match just because one point
here or there seems to be off. Someone mentioned that there are assumptions
being made on the part of the system that make it a bad idea.  That's fine,
but there is also assumptions being made by others that this system can be
circumvented by "5 friends". I don't know about you, but I  can't see into the
future. I f this system is easy to circumvent, let's    put in a check or
balance to make it harder to circumvent it. Why should this system be
fool-proof right from the start?
  My challenge is this...let's pass this thing into affect and monitor it
very closely. Let's find these loopholes and plug them tight. We can do it
because I think we have some very good thinkers involved with this list.
The "New Moo Society" needs some sort of recourse from the harrassment that
it incurs from time to time. It needs SOMETHING soon...let's give it the
arbitration with qualifications. The qualifications are that it needs to be
as fair as possible to all involved and the abuse of the system needs to be
kept at a minumum. Hell, even the U.S. justice system let's criminals go
free and innocent people rot in jail or even die. We aren't dealing with
anything as near as serious, but people can be hurt or accused wrongly by
this or any system. We can change it...very easily I might add.

Wholeflaffer

--------------------------


Message 70 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Tue May 25 13:38:01 1993 PDT
From:     Bloaf (#15550)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Re: A challenge....

I'm not going to suggest ways to improve this system, because I don't think it
can be improved. I'm against the whole thing, I think we need something
completely different or nothing at all. I'm not saying I know what system will
work, but that doesn't mean I can't complain about this one. I'm going to
continue to point out inadequacies in this system and any others that I
dislike, in the hopes that others will notice them too. Too many people are
saying "no system is perfect, so just vote for this one". Well, that's just
wrong. Perhaps no system is perfect, but that doesn't mean we should just
throw together the first thing that comes to mind and accept it as the only
way. I don't like this arbitration scheme at all, and I'm going to continue to
argue against the points that I don't like.

--------------------------


Message 71 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Tue May 25 13:55:18 1993 PDT
From:     Wholeflaffer (#49822)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Re: Bloaf

  That, of course, is your right. I was not aiming that post at those who
are totally against the system, only those who feel they can't vote for it
due to a point here or a point there. This obviously does not include you,
and I thought my previous post made it clear. However, your "pointing out"
of problems with the system is needed.

Wholeflaffer

--------------------------


Message 72 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Tue May 25 17:51:30 1993 PDT
From:     Q (#28058)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  say three cheers for bloaf - that's exactly why i voted no


--------------------------


Message 73 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Tue May 25 18:42:06 1993 PDT
From:     Jean-Luc (#56296)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392) and *Refrigerator (#6443)
Subject:  *LEGAL mail list

Since the Arbitration ballot has generated such tremendous interest in the
administration of Justice within the MOO, I'm hoping some of that interest
might spill over into a new project and mail list Tuner and I have started.
*LEGAL is for both fun and serious discussions of The Law and how it
is/was/ought to be  applied to the members of a given society.
(pardon the shameless plug)   -- Jean-Luc

--------------------------


Message 74 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Thu May 27 23:24:25 1993 PDT
From:     Roo (#50040)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Bloaf has a good point

Bloaf pointed out that the ballot is far too vague about many issues.  I feel
that it is necessary to have clarification about what sorts of crimes result
in what sorts of punishment.
I appears to me that although we are all aware of MOO mannners, we all at
sometime have made a wisecrack (or such) that may to some be harmless, but to
others seem severe.
(Quinn please forgive me for bringing up the wiz-bit thingy again but..)
I think Quinn's wiz-bit illustrates the point.  Some feel that Quinn should be
harshly punished for the wiz-bit, others shrug their shoulders and say that he
found a security breech, and should be acknowledged (then of course get it
taken away).
We all here bring our own background and experiences. With such a wide range
of perspective, I think it is essential for us to acknowledge that the
characters here run the full gamut of social and moral perspectives.
Yet, if we are to have this form of arbitration, it is necessary to set down
at least some general guidelines of behavior/punishment.    This way, players
won't have to feel like they may end up in front of the arbitration board for
something they thought was semi-innocent, without knowing the possible
reprocussions beforehand.  In this petitition, this has not yet been
clarified.
I understand, though, that coming to some sort of agreement as to what is
right and wrong and getting MOO consensus is 100 times more difficult than
this petition itself.
I hate to think that characters here would have to be leary of every thing
they said and did, for fear that someone with a different percpective might
take offense.
I do think Dicky has a point too.  As he says, every system has its flaws...
but if you dont have a solution then don't bitch. My proposed solution is that
we come up with an agreed upon and very general set of guidelines for
aritration so everybody knows up front what is expected from them and what the
reprecussions are.

--Roo

--------------------------


Message 75 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Fri May 28 09:45:55 1993 PDT
From:     Wilson (#50431)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  hrmph

Okay, I've read enough of the complainers and supporters and I'm gonna finally
put in my one dollar's worth.

To the people complaining and voting no:
  Are you that afraid of a little order?  A little people come to LambdaMOO to
escape reality and meet new and interesting people from all over the world.
Well, when something like this happens, problems are gonna happen.  And some
people come here to just cause trouble becasue they know that they are
faceless and can't be traced.  THIS is why we need SOME kind of arbitration
system.  People come here to escape responsibility from any actions that can
be just as devastating as in real life.  Words hurt as much (if not more) than
physical abuse.

To the people who voted yes:
  Okay, at least you are trying to get something done.

No comment to abstainers.

My option/views/ideas:
  We ARE a virtual society here.  We have cliques.  We have out little elitist
groups running around.  We suffer from prejudice and hatred.  We are just a
littl piece of real life being acted out on a computer simulation of reality.
LambdaMOO is the greatest socio/psychological experiment ever done.  WE do
need a system, in my opinion, to arbitrate the problems that come about.  The
wizards recently went into a hands-off mode, well, we went to pot.  Without
control, the bastards on this MOO who are the trouble makers have run free.
What can I do?  Refuse everything from them?  @gag them?  Thos are not real
life solutions.  Thos are methods of hiding, and being scared.  The chicken's
way out.  We need a virtual court system.  As this is a virtual society, we
could vote for a government.  A virtual gov't for the users, voted on by the
users. (paraphrased, of course).  There are moral users on this MOO.  There
are more than 5.  Some of these moral users are just silent and not well known
to all.  I consider myself very moral.  Ask my rl friends.  I have yet to
write up an official proposal for this, if you like, i will.

There!  I have said my one dollar's worth.  Responses are always invited.

- Wilson

--------------------------


Message 76 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Fri May 28 13:27:38 1993 PDT
From:     Mickey (#52413)
To:       Wilson (#50431) and *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Re: hrmph

I think the `no voters' are not saying they want to live in a dream world.
They have articulated particular criticisms which the proposal has not taken
into account.  There may be a few holdouts wanting `no system' but I think
most of the holdouts are waiting for a proposal that fairly reflects their
objections.

I think Grump has made as reasonable an attempt as any to listen to
objections, but I think the temptation is all too great for authors to treat
these petitions as personal property just because they are the only ones who
are privileged to edit them.  I have done it with mine and I have seen others
do it with theirs.  That's why I've been working on defining an amendments
process that takes the decision of whether to listen to an objection away from
the author, who probably has too much emotional investment in the idea to
really be totally objective.

In the absence of a way for the community to force an amendment to a proposal,
I don't think that it's fair to say that people are being obstructionist for
both voting no and not writing their own petition to compete.  It's a lot of
work and it's not for everyone, either due to skills or energy.

The bottom line, as you might expect, is that I think the No voters especially
should consider signing my petition for an Amendments Process (#51664) which
would enable proposals like this one to be fixed beforehand rather than making
disgruntled people sign things they still perceive as broken on the hope they
can be repaired later.

--------------------------


Message 77 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Mon May 31 13:58:27 1993 PDT
From:     Jean-Luc (#56296)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  Puff's #55917 Petition

I'm an advocate of the use of informal peer pressure to enforce social
norms in a system like LambdaMOO.  I've just read Puff's petition and
I enthusiastically endorse it.  (Like anyone actually cares what I
endorse!)  Anyway, I like it because it's simple, straightforward,
and not dependent on anyone's morals or anyone getting notice and
opportunity to confront witnesses, etc.  It just allows the owners
of each room to control access to them.  If Dr.Jerk (hypothetical)
goes around mistreating enough people and being banned from enough
rooms, the MOO will soon be no fun for him.  When he feels contrite
enough to make amends with the room owners, he'll be able to re-enter
the society.  It has the flexibility that comes from having no formal
rules, and the ease of use that comes from having no formal committees
or organizations.

The only thing I'm unsure of is the mechanics of it:  can it be done?
can it be hacked thru?  But the IDEA of empowering each player instead
of establishing a police force appeals to me.

--------------------------


Message 79 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Wed Jun  2 10:43:40 1993 PDT
From:     Arbitration (#50392)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
Subject:  End of Balloting: Final Results

   The voting period for Ballot:Arbitration (#50392): `Arbitration' has ended.
The final vote count is as follows:
        In favor:   270
        Against:    87
        Abstaining: 115
The proposal has passed and will be implemented by the wizards as soon as
possible.

--------------------------


Message 80 from *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
Date:     Wed Jun 22 22:08:41 1994 PDT
From:     *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392)
To:       *Ballot:Arbitration (#50392) and *Wizard-List (#6428)

The wizard Froxx has finished implementing ballot Ballot:Arbitration (#50392):
`Arbitration'.

--------------------------