Polluxz

[Doctor Internet]

Staff Report: Pollux v. Dimitris

Introduction

With this post, and the internal discussion surrounding it, we aim to review the circumstances of the report, make findings and deliver actions.

This post was written by Doctor Internet, with case and post review by Conn, Doctor Internet, Self, Joe Joe and Wolven.
As the report was about Pollux, he was excluded from the process.

Guiding Principles

In this review, we aim to follow a number of guiding principles:

1. Duty of care to the community and company.
   • Avoiding situations which cause harm to members of the community.
     
   • Avoiding situations which are illegal.
     
2. Common Sense and Fairness
   • Implement solutions which minimise confusion, and maximise fairness.
     
3. Stare Decisis
   • Following prior decisions, where conditions can be compared.
     
4. Following Rules and Policies as written.
   • Minimising grey areas and confusion.
     

Overview

In the report, Dimitris accused Pollux of breach of guidelines and abuse, in his failure to follow courtroom rule 5c. We will review this as an abuse of discretion.

This also brings into question the original appeal, in its relationship to the closure. We review de novo.

For this report, we have four main questions to answer:

• Should Dimitri's appeal have been approved?
  • Thus, should he have been unbanned?
    
• Furthermore, did Pollux err in his decision to close and deny?
  • Thus, did that err elevate from an error, to an abuse?
    

Through this, we move to the original appeal.

Appeal Review

The original appeal argues that the ban was unfair. Conversely, The Team states the case was severe, and Pollux states that, under regular circumstances, the appeal would be denied. In reviewing what evidence remained, along with statements provided by current and former team members, we affirm.

With the reason provided, in that the ban was unfair; the Appeal Rules state that “A Permanent ban cannot be disputed unless solid evidence is provided proving your innocence.” Therefore, we reject this as a reason for appeal.

The Team states that you lied; stating in your prior appeals, taking “full responsibility” for your prior behaviour, yet in the newest appeal, that you didn’t harass anyone. Due to a lack of consensus within the reviewers, we make no opinion.

Overall, under the merits of the original appeal, solely on the appeal, we affirm the denial.
However:

Appeal Rules

Next, we review rule 5c, which states that, “If the player successfully provides staff information to their request, staff have 7 days to either conclude or ask for further information else your unban request will be Approved and ban removed from record.” During the review, we questioned the interaction of this rule, and the requirement for valid appeals. I.e. Does an otherwise invalid appeal still benefit from the 5x rules?

Following the prior rased evidence requirement, an appeal, such as reviewed, should be immediately denied. However, rule 5 requires that, should such an invalid appeal remain unanswered, it must be approved. It is clear that the interaction of these two rules must be reviewed.

In favour of allowing 5c, principles 2 and 4 move us towards allowing 5c, even for invalid appeals. The rules as written are clear, in that if an appeal is left for more than the allotted time, the appeal must be approved. However, principles 1 and 2 move us away again, in that, if an appeal should not have been made in the first place, there shouldn’t be a reward for that being missed.

After discussion, three points of clarification have arisen:

1. Invalid appeals are not made valid by time alone, so by default, 5c does not apply to invalid reports.
   
2. Invalid appeals are implicitly validated by an administrator’s response, causing 5c to apply in this situation.
   
3. All non-troll appeals must be given a chance to reply.
   • However, this rule is not followed in practice, especially for invalid appeals.
     

With this, we have decided to review and rewrite the appeal rules. However, that will not be addressed in this case, and we continue with them, as they are today.

Therefore, to answer the question of, was the appeal, at the time, subject to 5c, we affirm.

Pollux's Response

Next, we move to the question of, did Pollux err in his decision to close the appeal.

In Pollux’s argument, that we “don’t enforce to the hour”, we reject. Evidence has been provided of other cases, where it has been enforced to the hour, and nothing in the rule states otherwise.

For the argument of “your UBR wouldn’t be allowed in the first place”, we affirm, as reviewed above.

For the argument that “management can overrule on a case-by-case basis”, we affirm. We have an ability to overrule on individual cases, to further our guiding principles, an ability we must have to be able to argue and decide on novel cases, to the benefit of principles 1 and 2.

For the argument that “We have a responsibility to ensure a safe environment”, we affirm, as is clear in our guiding principles.

Therefore, under ordinary circumstances, your appeal should have been approved, and the ban lifted.
However, under the specific circumstances of your ban, the appeal would not have been approved, aside from 5c, and was decided days before 5c’s limit, though not posted.

Through this, and the Owner's veto, further affirmed by review consensus, we will not change the outcome of the appeal.

Pollux Abused?

Finally, we answer, did Pollux’s error elevate to the level of abuse.

By the evidence provided, it is clear that the appeal was on its way to being denied, further, it seems clear that Pollux believed he had multiple reasons for 5c not to apply, and was not in violation of the rule.

However, Pollux’s conduct, both in failing to close on time and in his responses to you, caused confusion with the case, leading to this report.

We do not believe this rises to the level of abuse; however, for the conduct, Pollux will be issued a written warning.

Conclusion

Actions Taken:

• Future Review and Rewrite of Appeal Rules.
  
• Ban 83759 will remain on record and in place.
  
• Pollux will be issued a written warning.