1.0 Arbitration Process

In-app process of decision making. Results in Dismissal or Resolution

Overview

Whenever an Ethical or Procedural dilema presents itself, we assign our Members to arbitrate the dispute.

Arbitrating Members receive a copy of the Disputed Content or Proposal, and a Brief on why it’s being sent to arbitration in the first place.

The matter is decided when a ⅔ majority consensus of Arbitrating Members is reached.

When necessary the process scales by a multiplication factor of 3 (ie: 9, 27, 82…)

Where it occurs/ how we initiate it

Member identifies content for dispute, writes a brief, and meets the arbitration threshold, the arbitration process begins.

For dilemmas of a procedural nature, Members are selected from within the relevant Guild, or Parent Guild as needed.

For dilemmas of an ethical nature, Members are selected at random from within the posting language family

In both instances Members receive notice of selection in their Notifications, and retain the right to Decline to participate.

3 response options are given: Agree, Disagree, and Unsure.

In the event a Member either Declines to participate, or responds “Unsure”, another Member from the pool is selected to fill their role.

All Members, whether respondents or not, are thanked for their participation, (or lack of participation, discretion)

Once a ⅔ Majority determination is made, The Reporting Member is informed of determination, the Posting Member is informed only if determination is against their favor.

If Arbitration finds fault with the Content, it is removed and sent back to the Posting party as a draft. Along with the Brief on why it was selected for arbitration in the first place. And the Posting Members Potenza index is reduced to ⅓ of its initial value.

If no fault is found with the Content, it remains in place, and the Reporting Member’s Billings score is reduced by ⅓ of its initial value.

At no point are the identities of the Posting, Reporting, or Arbitrating Members made known to one another.

Once a piece of Content has undergone Arbitration, its Arbitration Threshold is increased by a multiple of three.

Challenges to the Determination repeat the same mechanism as outlined above up to 17 times, excepting that the number of Arbitrating Members scales in step the Arbitration Threshold. The requirement is that there be 3 times as many arbitrating members as the threshold dictates. And no Member is selected Arbitrate twice for the same Content.

Also something about how the billings score and potenza index are affected through multiple iterations

Philosophy