(redirected from EssaiParExil)

[Home]EpreuveParExil

MeatballWiki | RecentChanges | Random Page | Indices | Categories
Cette page a démarré sur TrialByExile

Un mécontent s'est introduit discrètement dans une communauté et a établi une base. Peut-être que le mécontent est un troll, essayant délibérément de provoquer quelque ennui. Peut-être que le mécontent est un contributeur utile ayant des problèmes de s'ajuster aux AttentesCommunauté. La CommunautéNestPasDaccord, au moins pas universellement. Si le problème est non traité d'une façon ou d'une autre, le mécontent menace de déchirer la communauté.

Par conséquent, appliquez un ExiléCommunauté temporaire du mécontent de 24 heures. Le mécontent a le texte :

La communauté peut même être encore en désaccord sur le fait de savoir si l'on doit appliquer l'exil temporaire, mais cette décision a eu lieu dans le passé et devient non pertinente par les événements en corus et par conséquent mourra rapidement au loin. Pour rien, l'exil provisoire donne du temps pour refroidir les émotions de tous les côtés. L'exil pourrait être absolu, mais il pourrait également suivre le modèle du BacASableAutomatique.

Comparez avec EpreuveParFeu?

Exigences

Exigences absolues. Ne quittez pas la maison sans elle.

Parce que la CommunautéNestPasDaccord sur le processus d'exil, bien qu'elle soit en désaccord sur le fait que la personne soit exilée, vous avez véritablement besoin à ce stade d'un ProcessusEquitable et décent et d'un ProcessusOuvert. De ce fait, quand l'exil provisoire est appliqué, l'autorité devrait poster ou pointer quelque affirmation sans ambiguïté comme "tout échec à se conformer aux termes de cette suspension d'une journée, y compris la création d'un nouveau compte, aboutira à l'application immédiate d'une suspension d'une semaine".

HTwoGTwo utilise cela comme base pour bon nombre de tous leurs exils. Cela fonctionne pour eux parce que (a) le processus exil a été conçu avec l'implication de la communauté, ainsi la communauté est d'accord avec ça ; (b) la BBC est l'autorité de référence et propriétaire de la communauté et exerce régulièrement cette autorité de différentes façons. Voir les transgressions des règles maison sur h2g2:HouseRules? et aussi h2g2:HouseRules?-Transgressions.

Si vous ne disposez pas de telles règles, toute tentative pour faire appliquer le modèle de l'EpreuveParExil rendra les choses probablement encore pires. Dans ces cas là, toute tentative d'appliquer l'EpreuveParExil divisera la communauté, plutôt que de la réunir.

Coûts

Attention à ce que le prix à payer pour réunir la communuaté puisse aboutir à la création d'un monstre. Attention au fait d'aller dans ce désordre une fois, vous pouvez être amené à y retourner, aussi essayez d'identifier les racines du conflit. Attention à ce que le besoin de maîtriser une solide AttenteCommunauté que le processus d'exil soit respecté gâche les opportunités de PardonnerEtOublier, réduit la flexibilité et a d'autres inconvéniens comparables à d'autres SolutionsLégales.

Qui échoue la trace ?

Dans une communauté volontaire, sans rapport avec le travail telle que WikiPedia, pourquoi une personne ne pourrait pas simplement attendre 24 heures ? Elles ne peuvent pas se passer de cette'' addiction.

Oui, il est facile d'attendre simplement 24 heures. C'est ce qui fait que l'AttenteCommunauté se fissurer contre l'exil. Et à ce stade quelques personnes n'attendront pas, parce que :

Ces personnes sont précisément celles que vous ne voulez pas dans votre communauté.

Le texte ci-dessus est dans le DomainePublic

La discussion ci-dessous extraite de TrialByExile reste à traduire

Il me semble comme si c'était un anti-modèle. La communauté a déjà créé un lien émotionnel avec l'individu à l'essai, d'où l'essai. Le lien n'est pas un lien positif, mais il est asses tangible. Notez comment vous parlez plus tard de la façon dont l'exil est un processus de transformation sur les émotions de chacune des parties. Un essai est une punition en soi-même : voir PunirRéputation au lieu de DissuaderInteraction -- SunirShah

Il y a certainement un lien, mais le lien est la cause de l'essai, pas la conséquence. Il est facile de dire que vous ne devriez pas aller en premier lieu dans cette position, mais parfois vous formez un lien émotionnel par accident ou par erreur de jugement, et parfois vous formez un lien avec quelqu'un qui change (ou peut-être que vous changez). Dans une grande communauté, de tels liens sont un fait de vie non bienvenu.

Un simple DissuaderRéputation est bien sûr une alternative. Mais alors que l'EpreuveParExil est désagréable, d'où le sentiment médiéval de son nom, ce n'est pas une tentative pour PunirRéputation. Plutôt une tentative par la communauté d'évaluer l'utilisateur, et elle offre à l'utilisateur une chance d'évaluer la communauté. Si l'essai échoue, alors l'utilisateur peut exercer son DroitDePartir et la communauté peut être solidaire pour pratiquer le DissuaderRéputation ou l'ExiléCommunauté selon qu'elle soit dure ou douce. --MartinHarper

Je pense que vous êtes ambigu sur le terme "évaluation" avec le mot "essai". Les évaluations sont des instruments d'information ; ils sont en eux-mêmes netures en valeur (*), même si cela veut dire généralement qu'ils sont constructifs. Les essais sont des instruments de jugement, et par conséquent sélectifs. La sélection contre est une action sur destructive, tandis que la sélection en faveur est une action sur constructive. Ce serait difficile après l'essai de revenir sur votre verdict parce que cela invaliderait la dépense d'avoir été sur l'essai, d'ou le fait que l'essai est une dichotomie. ConstruireEnTolérance.

(*) SVP ne laissez pas les déconstrutionniste ici. Nous savons tous que les évaluations ne sont pas neutres en valeur, mais j'essaye d'indiquer des degrés relatifs, pas absolus.

Mais parfois un lien émotionnel se forme vraiment. Prenons un cas extrême où notre contributeurs aimés de longue date en viennent à devenir fous. Maintenant supposons que nous ayons voulu décider si éjecter Alex pour son choix censément morveux d'un nom pour OddMuse ? La première question est de savoir comment s'est élevé le conflit à ce stade en premier lieu ? Puis la question suivante est ce que seraient les conséquences s'il restait. Clairement, la personne, disons Scott, qui a décidé de défier Alex sera bloqué à l'autre bout du jeu de bascule ; la réputation de Scott est sur la ligne durant l'essai. Si la communauté choisit de conserver Alex, alors le microscope se tourne vers Scott. Pourquoi les valeurs de Scott si manifestement en opposition avec les nôtres créeraient une perturbation violente ?

Etrangement, c'est un cas beaucoup plus facile à résoudre parce que nous nous connaissons tous. Le cas le plus dificile est de juger des actes "criminels" contre LeCollectif. La fondation de FermentWiki est un exemple. C'est même un meilleur exemple parce que la CommunautéNestPasDaccord, ma réaction initiale était aussi terrible, et le processus de réconcicialition a été déjoué --tout spécialement parce que c'était simplement la continuation d'une plus longue série de problèmes. Ces problèmes tendent à générer beaucoup de texte, et je l'espère au bas niveau que ces "crimes" en sont vraiment, vraiment pour finir nous servir d'expérience pour nous aider tous à grandir.

Je reconnais que c'est une réponse molle, et je pourrais écrire plus sur la façon dont notre stratégie de PardonnerEtOublier a été efficace, tout spécialement en vue le fait que je continue à l'utiliser comme un exemple de cas (sans éthique peut-être). Ceci est un sujet intéressant. Devrait suffire maintenant pour démarrer une page ? -- SunirShah

Ok, je concéderai que l'EpreuveParExil a un élément de punition, et dans certains cas est seulement de la punition. C'est certainement un outil de RoiDieu : peu importe que la décision ne soit pas réinitialisée, parce que le RoiDieu est en fait intouchable. Je pense qu'il est important que la période d'exil doit être suffisamment longue pour être gênante, mais suffisamment petite pour être tolérable. 24 heures suffit.

There's a parallel to the UseRealNames gauntlet described at WhyUseRealNames. I find that policy mildly irritating, but I'm willing to submit to it, so I pass the ordeal. If I rejected it and posted as MyRedDice?, then I would fail the ordeal, and there would be consequences. Now, I know that there are other purposes to UseRealNames, but one of them is to weed out those who will submit to CommunityExpectations from those who will not. Similarly, where TrialByExile is applied there must be an CommunityExpectation that users must abide by the terms of their exile, even if the GodKing has made a horrible mistake. --MartinHarper

That parallel to UseRealNames is true in a way, but the analogy breaks down when you consider intent. While UseRealNames is a barrier to entry, TrialByExile is a tool to break people already involved. Moreover, the UseRealNames policy has an escape hatch for those who do not want to UseRealNames. TrialByExile is essentially absolute, failing the existance of SockPuppets. And, as a matter of obviousness, TrialByExile will encourage people to subvert (fuck!) the system by creating things as SockPuppets out of sheer discontented and malevolent spite. Anger begets anger. Violence begets violence.

And as you point out, it has a medieval character to it. It's not difficult to find stories of the exiled deciding to overthrow their oppressors as the only acceptable recourse. If they had another less violent option of reproach, the vast majority in those stories would likely have taken it. Revolutions are bad, and the way to avoid revolutions is the application of FairProcess. That means opening communication lines, not closing it down hard.

Then again, the preferred method of dealing with "malcontents" is to ignore the person away (DissuadeReputation), which is closing communications. This leaves me at a quandary. I'll have to think about this some more. -- SunirShah

There are escape hatches for the malcontent: one is time - wait 24 hours, and you can escape. Another is OutOfBand? communication with either the GodKing, or with your friends from the community. Another is to exercise your RightToLeave.

The medieval nature of the ordeal not withstanding, and accepting that it has hideous problems, I think it's the best solution I've seen for the problem. The fundamental challenge is that the CommunityDoesNotAgree - DissuadeReputation won't get you past that - if anything, it threatens to make the problem worse. --MartinHarper

I don't understand. In a voluntary, non-work related community such as WikiPedia, why wouldn't someone just wait 24 hours? They can't be that addicted.

I'm wondering, is it maybe something more like that 1) the target doesn't know in advance that all they have to do is wait 24 hrs, or 2) there can be situations where there is disagreement whether the person "initiating" TrialByExile against the target has the authority (i.e. Scott: "Alex, you're exiled for 24 hrs". Alex: "You can't do that! You know I've never liked TrialByExile anyway. CommunityDoesNotAgree!". Bayle: "Whoops, looks like you failed, Alex. Bye!")

If it's (1), this isn't OpenProcess, and if it's (2), that's even worse (because it was debatable whether the TrialByExile was even in effect at the time of the infraction).

-- BayleShanks

Answer to first point moved to document - "who fails the trial"

Your second point, regarding disagreement over the necessary authority, is really a key requirement: you couldn't apply TrialByExile on MeatballWiki, because there's no undisputed authority.

Martin: "I think Alex is causing too much trouble - he should go."
Bayle: "Agreed."
Scott: "Me too. Alex, you're exiled for 24 hrs".
Alex's sock puppet: "You can't do that! You know I've never liked TrialByExile anyway. CommunityDoesNotAgree!".
Bayle: "Whoops, looks like you failed, Alex. Bye!")
Martin: "Hang on, Scott's not BenevolentDictator here! He can't do that."
Scott: "Why not? I'm a CommunityMember, and I have a right to call these things."
Alex's sock puppet: "Martin's right: this wasn't FairProcess at all."
Bayle: "Go away Alex - you're a CommunityExile now."
Martin: "No he's not!"
(etc)

So, previously you have a united community agreeing that Alex should leave, but because of the flawed application of TrialByExile by someone who's not an undisputed authority, you've ended up dividing that community, and Alex gets to remain under cover of the general confusion. --MartinHarper

My incredibly naive reaction to all this is "if someone's posting stupid stuff, just ignore them until they stop"; why all the big hoo-ha and tons of elaborate rituals and patterns and anti-patterns and labels and trials and stuff? Just ignore them. Is that really so hard that all this other elaborate stuff is easier? Sure, it can be an effort to ignore someone, but it seems unlikely that it's more effort than all this other stuff.

(If they're actually attacking on a non-verbal level, DoSing the server or setting a 'bot to erase pages or something, that's a different story; but I have the feeling that most of the above is worrying about people who "attack" just by virtue of the words that they post.)

Yours for simple solutions, *8) --DavidChess

David, you must really make the experience of being part of a community that is under some form of attack. There may be various form of defense, better and worse, TrialByExile is probably worse ... but, ignoring won't work. Let's assume that you are the founder. If you ignore it, you signal silent agreement, you in fact accept what he is doing. If you ignore it, you who knows how to react correctly, how to interpret the rules of the community, others won't ignore it, who are less able to do so. They will only make things go worse and you will have to react. Whatever you do, there is no ignoring. -- HelmutLeitner

Well, I have in fact been part of a community "under attack", multiple times in the twenty or so years that I've been involved in online communities; that experience is where my advice to ignore the stupid behavior comes from: I've found it usually the most effective strategy. But you're right, of course, that it isn't always the right solution. Sometimes the solution is to ignore the stupid part, and act as though the person has said a rational and polite reconstruction of what they actually said; that is, engage the ideas that they'r putting forward, but ignore the obnoxious tone in which they were said. Bystanders will have no trouble getting the message of the behavior that you're modelling! I've never seen a community where elaborate rituals involving 24-hour exiles and trials and so on actually worked. But maybe I just haven't happened upon any, or maybe it's a new idea that will turn out to be stellar once implemented. *8) Worth a try, I suppose. --DavidChess

I think this page is worthless, pure speculation. It would never work in practice, but I ignored it. :-) If by "ignore" you mean "partially ignore" then I fully agree. Half of the "art of online communication" seems to be about "what to ignore". -- HelmutLeitner

Quoting from the DocumentMode: HTwoGTwo uses this as the basis for pretty much all their exiles. This works for them because (a) the exile process was designed with community involvement, so the community agrees with it; (b) the BBC is the undisputed authority and owner of the community, and regularly exercises that authority in a variety of ways. See the transgressions section of h2g2:HouseRules? and also h2g2:HouseRules?-Transgressions.

Sending people to coventry is sometimes effective, and sometimes not, as discussed briefly on PeerPressure, and more extensively (but inaccurately, IMO) at DissuadeReputation and DissuadeInteraction. The essential problems are:

I wasn't so much suggesting a community action to send the "miscreant" to an official Coventry, as I was that anyone who doesn't want to engage with the troll should simply not engage with the troll. Again, that may be naive; on the other hand my experience is that it seems to work pretty well. (It also doesn't require a community consensus on just who's a troll; one person's troll is another person's interesting source of alternative views. Maybe one of my problems with this sort of "official trial" idea is that it seems to require a scary-to-me amount of GroupThink and consensus on who deserves to be tried / exiled, or alternately an enormous amount of trust in the "authority" if e's allowed to impose the exile at will. Maybe it would help if the community had a posted-in-advance list of behaviors that result in exile? Perhaps that's an unstated part of the original idea, that should be stated. Under what conditions can the trial be called? Just whenever someone (the authority?) wants? Or...?) -- DavidChess

I should move this all to DissuadeInteraction or DissuadeReputation. Ho hum. --MartinHarper

I'm half-inclined to take back most of my words above *8) having thought of various examples where ignoring in the sense I meant it is clearly wrong. If someone were to start every post by obscenely insulting the previous speaker, say, you don't just ignore that, you scold them every time they do it, and if they keep it up you ban them. Maybe a trial by exile would be a good part of that process (if, say, some community members thought the insults were harmless joshing). I was thinking more of cases where the troll is just being (intentionally or accidentally) clueless on some subject, refusing to go along with a party line, misusing apostrophes, and so on. But that's only a subset of possible destructive behaviors. So feel free to refactor anything that I said above, up to and including just deleting the whole section! (I won't delete it myself, though, as there's probably some content in the discussion that would be useful to a dedicated refactoring.) -- DavidChess

So now I have a somewhat subtler worry about this pattern. What happens if someone's behavior is such that the community does not agree that it's bad, but enough people and/or the leader feel that way that the TrialByExile is imposed. The person passes the trial, and doesn't post anything for 24 hours or whatever. Then they return, and continue doing whatever the original controversial behavior was. How has the situation improved? What do you do now? It's still the case that the community does not agree that the behavior is obnoxious, and the people who are against taking further action against the (um) suspect now have additional evidence that the person is good ("hey, he passed the trial by exile; what more proof do you need that he's okay?"), but it seems unlikely that the people who do object to the behavior will now give it a free pass. So what happens next? (cf. Sunir's worry above that the trial only increases the community's disagreement.) This seems like a pretty serious flaw? -- DavidChess

Well, most of these disagreements occur not because the community disagrees over whether some piece of behaviour is bad, but because they disagree over how serious it is, whether it should be punished and how severely, what the best response is, and so forth. But, as you say, sometimes there is disagreement even over whether the behaviour is a problem, and this is a more serious problem, and is harder to solve. If the community doesn't even agree that a crime has taken place, then you're pretty screwed up already. Maybe time to think about a StartAgain.

In my experience, the temporary exile (being one that actually occurs, rather than an attemped "LifetimeBan" that is just sock-puppeted out of existence), coupled with the exile passing the ordeal, is sufficient to effectively "wipe the slate" and grant a brief "honeymoon period", even in the eyes of hir harshest critics (as ever, provided that the exiling process has near-universal community support). That allows ForgiveAndForget, because we've got some closure. We hope the exile will be transformative justice and the exile will reform. However, even if sie doesn't, the exile means that we can look at fresh behaviour afresh, rather than continually re-airing every grievance from the last X years, so there has at least been some benefit.

So, when the exile returns, AssumeGoodFaith that sie will try to behaviour better in the future: most will. However, if sie continues to be a thorn in the community's side, then you will have to take further action, perhaps simply repeating the same process. HTwoGTwo used a sliding scale of exiles of increasing length, building up to a LifetimeBan, but I'm not sure that is ideal. I agree that TrialByExile is not always the end of all strife, but I don't see this particular outcome as a serious flaw, because I think it does improve the situation. --MartinHarper

PageTranslation LangueFrançaise TrialByExile

Discussion

MeatballWiki | RecentChanges | Random Page | Indices | Categories
Edit text of this page | View other revisions
Search: