Discussion: LEGOE - Complaint Process

Posted Jan. 25, 2021, 12:13 a.m. by Fleet Captain Adam W. (Chief EGO) (Adam W.)

Posted by Vice Admiral Sarah Hemenway (President) in Discussion: LEGOE - Complaint Process

Posted by Fleet Captain Adam W. (Chief EGO) in Discussion: LEGOE - Complaint Process

Posted by Vice Admiral Sarah Hemenway (President) in Discussion: LEGOE - Complaint Process
Posted by… suppressed (4) by the Post Ghost! 👻
Tied into the discussion of the AEC role, some issues with the complaint process arose. Here are the proposed changes to incorporate that feedback:


Every person who posts on the Election Area is expected to keep their posts to the point, truthful, and within the bounds of common courtesy. Behavior such as, but not limited to, character attacks, inflammatory finger-pointing, trickery, and deception will not be tolerated and may lead to penalties at the Election Coordinator’s discretion. (Example: “Candidate X is a horrible person…” will not be tolerated. However, “Candidate X has made several mistakes as QDir. They are…” will be tolerated within the bounds of common courtesy). Any additional campaign materials, including, but not limited to, candidate websites, are required to meet the same standards as Election Area posts, regardless of the origin of the material. The Election Coordinator is responsible for reviewing posts and campaign materials on a regular basis and for ruling on questionable instances as they occur.

Campaigning via the club’s software platform may take place on the Election Area only. Any MOTD announcements implying support for or voicing opinions against any specific ticket are expressly forbidden. MOTD announcements of upcoming Election Season events and timetables are permissible provided that they do not contain support for any ticket. Violations of these rules will result in sanctions from the Election Coordinator, and immediate removal of the announcement by TECH or the Election Coordinator.

All members are permitted to pose questions to the candidates after the candidate’s ticket has been validated, unless the member has been restricted from doing so by the Election Coordinator. Questions may be directed at some or all of the candidates, and may only be posted in the Election Area. Candidates are not required to answer the questions.

Except as provided by this Edict, no person shall post a message on the WeBB endorsing a Candidate. During the voting period, eligible members may post a message in the Election Area endorsing another candidate. Endorsements must meet the standards in this Section. No person may post an endorsement message that implies it is also on behalf of anyone who is not the person posting the message.

Candidates may individually contact people to discuss the Election and to ask for their support. In the event that the person contacted does not wish to talk about the Election, the Candidate must refrain from discussing it with him. At no time may any unsolicited campaign material be sent to more than one person at a time, including using capabilities offered by STF’s software platform. Use of the BCC field in any election related email is prohibited. Should an individual not wish to be contacted regarding the election, he may request that the Election Coordinator place him on a publicly accessible “do not contact” list. All members are required to abide by this list.

Discussion in any official STF chat mediums (e.g. Discord) is permissible as long as it does not imply support for or against a specific Candidate. (Example: “Have you read the election ship lately?” or “It sure is an interesting election” are permissible. However, “I can’t believe Candidate X said that” or “Candidate Y sure had some good answers today” or “I think it’s clear who’s winning” are not permissible).

Any violation of campaigning rules will be investigated by the Election Coordinator and any Member may issue a complaint of potential violation of campaigning rules to the Election Coordinator. The Election Coordinator must allow the accused Member the opportunity to adequately defend himself and respond to any accusation before levying a penalty. If it is found that a Member (Candidate or otherwise) did violate the campaigning rules, appropriate penalties will be given by the Election Coordinator as outlined in Section III, regardless of the location of the violation. Campaigns may be held liable for actions of their supporters if it can be shown that the campaign was aware of the offending activity. No Member may complain on behalf of another Member and anonymous reports of campaign rule violations will not be considered by the Election Coordinator.

I forgot to add that the discussion period for this will end at the end of the day (EST) on Sunday, January 31, 2021.

Thank you,

There’s some old language like “WeBB” that can be cleaned up.

I haven’t yet compared this side by side to the old version, so I may have more feedback later. But one thing I am spotting that I dislike is the line about no member complaining on behalf of another.

Now, generally I think that’s a rule that make sense. But I can imagine situations where members should be able to complain on behalf of other members. One that’s come up a couple times is when a member makes an endorsement on behalf of other members. Anyone should be able to complain about that and it can be sort of subtle, so an Election Coordinator might miss it. I also have seen people say inappropriate things about former members and I don’t think we should have to try to track those people down to remove something like that. It’s not always so easy and might not be that desirable for them.

This rule is too restrictive in my opinion.

Adam W.

On second thought, I don’t think it’s a rule that generally makes sense.

I’ve complained on behalf of others many times when I’ve observed them being bullied, slandered, or treated unfairly. Sometimes they have been new members. Often they have not been the most articulate. Often they have not been the most well-versed in our rules or followed club-wide posting areas closely.

I don’t know what we’re really gaining by not permitting complaints on behalf of others. But I’m concerned about what we would lose. I’d rather see us encouraging standing up for others than outlawing it. At least for those who can’t as easily stand up for themselves.

Adam W.

I think the big issue here comes when the target of the “attack” does not view it as an attack, whereas the person complaining does, which creates unnecessary work for the Election Coordinator, who is required to review any potential rules violation. I think that, as a whole, we could stand to not approach it as encouraging people to stand up for other people, but as encouraging people to give others the benefit of the doubt, while allowing clear violations to be dealt with swiftly. There is also nothing here preventing someone from going to the EC and saying “hey, I was really uncomfortable with the way person A talked about person B;” it is just not a documented complaint with the requisite investigation that entails.


I think the language as it is written now would prevent that actually.

You’re calling this a big issue. What is causing you to think it is an issue and a big one at that? I don’t have visibility of most of the complaints, so an explanation would help me understand better. Also, two of your three proposals didn’t clearly state the purpose of the proposals and this one didn’t explain what it is that is being changed. I think there’s some positive changes you are suggesting, but it’s kind of hard to follow with how they are being presented.

Adam W.

Hi Adam,

The two posts without proposal text are direct follow-ons to this post and the resulting comments between you and I on the linked Google Doc: How can I make this easier for you to follow? I tried to use the change log feature of Google Docs and you asked further discussion take place here. I’m really hoping you have a good way to solve this issue.


Thank you for posting the link. There was a lot said and it was weeks ago, so it’s not fresh in my mind. I think it’s always good to define the problem we’re trying to solve or the goal we’re trying to achieve. I think the main issue that we’re talking about is frequent petty complaints during the election making life unpleasant for membership, especially for the election coordinator.

What I don’t know is if complaints on behalf of others is an issue or a big issue. Is it?

I think an improvement we can make over the last election is when people file a complaint that is acted upon then the person being complained against should be informed who that came from. This would allow for the possibility of a reconsiling dialogue between the two and make the complainer own up to making their complaint to some degree.

Adam W.

Posts on The Command Ship

In topic

Posted since

© 1991-2021 STF. Terms of Service

Version 1.12.5