Aberrant: 2011 - OpNet - 2008: Arbitration Poll #2

[Singularity]

Good job with the first poll everyone; time for the second one. This one will be slightly more complex and have multiple questions. This poll will be open until 10:00 PM Monday, September 11th. Also, regarding the third answer on Question #2, the "mitigating circumstances" would be determined later in another poll (if that option receives a majority vote).

And once again: if you do not record your votes in a reply to this thread your votes will not be counted.

[Machina]

I voted for option 3, option 3, and option 2, respectively.

[Chiteki Hoshiko]

Options 2, 1 and 1. Just registering the vote, I'll comment later, when I have time.

[Singularity]

Please place your commentary on why you voted in the related discussion threads; these poll threads are meant for the polls themselves.

EDITED: voted two, three, and three.

[The White Rat]

I voted for 1, 3, and 2.

With regards to the 1st vote, I think that a random choice, from a list of arbiters, would be the fairest. However, if the arbiter selected by random is not available, then they could select one from the list.

As for the third vote, if it is a one-on-one situation, then I feel that if one person calls for arbiration, arbitartion will be initiated.

[Long]

2 3 3

[Singularity]

To clarify:

In the case of an absolute majority, a one on one interaction would require both participants to agree by the very nature of the term "absolute majority."

[Hugin]

3,3,2

Leave it to a lawyer to make shit complicated.

[Cosmic Comet]

3,2,2

[GDP_ST]

3, 3, 2

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

2,3,1

Random? That's insane. Being a judge is a skill. Random implies he doesn't have it.

[Ashnod]

3,2,1

[Good Alice]

2.3.3

[z-Carver]

1 - 3 - 2

[Singularity]

Okay, going back to my faulty faculties, here's what I've got.

Question one dealt with who will be arbitrators. Two people wanted the selection to be random from a list. Four people wanted only the participants of the thread to decide. Five people wanted the participants to select from a list of arbitrators. That third option is one vote short of a majority, hence in the next Arbitration poll I will repeat this question but will only include the second and third options.

Question two dealt with determining when someone could leave arbitration. One person said yes absolutely, two said no absolutely, and eight said yes if there are mitigating circumstances. There's a clear majority here (yes with mitigating circumstances) and the next poll will include a question regarding who determines if mitigating circumstances are present. Just what "mitigating circumstances" are is something we still need to discuss before putting up a poll.

Question three dealt with who determines if there needs to be arbitration used. Three people felt that if one participant called for arbitration then it needed to be used. Six people felt that if an absolute majority of the participants then arbitration would be used. Two people felt that all of the participants needed to agree to arbitration before it would be used. With six votes, the absolute majority option carries the day here. While this specific issue has been addressed, I will include a question on the next poll that will compliment this particular aspect.

A small note: it seems I forgot to report my votes and I did not include them in this tabulation.