Hi everyone. In recent weeks we've been working to put together a panel known as the Bulbagarden Conduct Review Board to deal with complaints about moderators and administrators here at Bulbagarden in a transparent and consistent manner. This is the program we've come up with so far, and we'd like to open it to the public now for a comment period. Please chime in with any substantial criticisms, questions, or critiques you have of the Conduct Review Board. We will take comments and criticisms into consideration and then roll out a final version of the policy.
The Conduct Review Board
The Conduct Review Board (CRB) would be a panel of selected moderators and administrators who have shown levelheadedness in dealing with complex or contentious situations.
A user with a complaint would have to submit a complaint by sending a PM outlining the complaint to at least two members of the Conduct Review Board. This PM would outline what happened, who was involved, any other relevant information that may assist the board in finding the facts of the matter.
Once a complaint is received, three of the members of the CRB would be selected at random. They will be assigned to this case. The user will be notified of the CRB members assigned to the case. If a member is chosen who is the subject of the complaint (or if there is any other conflict of interest,) they will be replaced by another member, chosen at random.
These three members would take a vote on whether or not this incident warrants an investigation on the basis of the complaint. If at least two of the three think it warrants an investigation, the investigation will proceed. If less than that number think it warrants an investigation, a brief memo is submitted to the user outlining why their claim was denied.
If an investigation is initiated, the three members have an unlimited right to collect facts and data by asking questions of people involved in the incident or any others who may be able to furnish relevant information. At the conclusion of this, the three members of the specific incident review board will make a ruling, again by vote, as to whether or not the moderator was wrong in this instance.
If the moderator is found to be not at fault, the Board explains why to both the moderator and the user. Similarly, if the moderator is found at fault, both moderator and user should be informed.
If the user or moderator disagrees with the board's decision, the Appeals Board will be summoned. Consisting of evkl and Archaic, we will first decide whether to review the case (based on the facts already collected). If the Appeals Board declines to review it, the original ruling stands. Otherwise, we may collect additional facts and make a ruling. That ruling is final. In the event of a split vote on the outcome, the original ruling stands.
In the event of a conflict of interest on the Appeals Board, Evil Figment will be the first replacement to the board. In the event that both evkl and Archaic are under scrutiny, Evil Figment and another CRB member not included in the original three will be chosen at random to be the appeals board.
In the event that the entire staff is accused of impropriety, the complainant will be asked to specify a specific moderator or group of moderators who are at fault. If the complainant is unable to do so, the complaint will be dismissed; the staff has no reasonable way of conducting a conduct review when the entire staff is accused of wrongdoing.
If a moderator is found liable, the CRB can suggest a punishment that is approved or modified by the Appeals Board, as it sees fit.
At the end of every month, a report is published which outlines each incident complaint that goes to full review, its outcome, and any punishment--all anonymously (stripping the name of the user and moderator in question and any specific identifying details.)
A complaint that has exhausted its appeals may not be raised again.