O5 Mirror, created by thedeadlymoose.
Prologue [REVISION 11/11/21]
The intended purpose of this discussion is because Administrators plan to follow these processes to Review all uses of Administrative Fiat from at least the past 6 months (possibly 1 year), plus any Administrative Fiat which any Staff member requests an individual review on.
Administrators will negate all, some, or none of these Fiats. Staff will know why. Any Fiats which are not negated will be explicitly open to a Staff Vote to negate them.
Due to the extensive confusion regarding Administrative Fiat, Administrators do not wish to begin this Review process without Staff discussion and awareness of the standards being used for Review, as well as Staff recourse to override.
Introduction
I've discovered that the way Administrative Fiat is supposed to work is unclear to almost everyone. At the time of writing the Charter, it seemed impossible that time would march on so far that people would forget how Fiat was supposed to work and why. Yet, here we are, and time has marched on.
Additionally, when Troy and I retired, we did not write most of this down. We wrote down as much as we could in the time that we had, but we had to do triage — and writing down Fiat policy didn't make the cut. We passed on the general guidelines in orientation voice chats instead. It turns out that this can lead to things like "people forgetting things" as "literally years pass"? I guess????????
The primary purpose of this thread is to explain how things are supposed work so that we can both avoid many problems with existing solutions, and so that we are better able to fix how things work, as well as to improve and reform accountability processes for Fiat.
Here, I am laying out to the best of my knowledge how Fiat is supposed to work, based on research, memory, and discussion. I am adding suggestions for reforms, as well.
This Will Be Messy
This is a work in progress, and will definitely be revised and corrected. I had to rush sending this past administrators prior to posting. This was due to a lot of time issues and Life Happening. I am Reserve for a reason, unfortunately. Plus, I ended up needing to post this in the wee hours of the morning :)
So please forgive my inevitable errors, typos, bad explanations, misremembered details, or other points of confusion. Please be kind :)
What's an Administrative Fiat?
Charter Summary:
1. The Administrative Fiat is an exercising of an Administrator's personal will over a site policy or rule by either accelerating a process or holding that process in abeyance. It has, in the past, been used positively (to ban trolls and spammers) and negatively (to delete low articles unilaterally). Each use of it is reviewed by administrators to determine if that use is abusive or not. Abuse of administrative fiat is grounds for removal from administrative staff and banning from the site.
2. Reserve and Inactive Administrators may only perform administrative fiats in the case of emergencies (to prevent damage to the site, or to correct a serious, immediate problem which requires administrator access.
Let's "explode" this, like an anatomy diagram.
What's the purpose of Fiat?
- The Administrative Fiat primarily exists to allow admins to fast-forward or skip site processes during emergencies, and to cut red tape that's getting in the way of positive change.
- The Administrative Fiat secondarily exists to — rarely — allow admins to stop site processes in their tracks, at least temporarily, to prevent damage to the community or the site.
Although I don't think this is written down, the intent of Admin Fiat is primarily to allow an admin to quickly enact the will of staff (based on the advice of staff) when it's difficult or time-sensitive, when there's a real, actual reason. And secondarily, rarely, to temporarily stop the will of staff if there's an extremely good reason and to prevent a serious negative consequence.
An administrator is typically using Fiat any time they use the backing of administrative power to change or circumvent a policy, process, or rule in a way that no non-administrator can do. This is a use of Fiat even if the admin doesn't say they are using Fiat. This is important because Fiat accountability processes must apply in cases where the Fiat is undeclared as well.
If a group of administrators uses a Fiat as a group decision, we'll call that a "Group Fiat," even though that's not official terminology.
Of note: Any time admins approved ignoring the Charter or another piece of policy, it stemmed from Admin Fiat under current policy.
What are the limitations of Fiat?
- Fiat is limited to matters of site policy and rules.
- Fiats must be explained to the best of the admin's ability. (Staff intent, but not in Charter)
- Every single use of Fiat is required to be reviewed by administrators to determine if that use is abusive or not. (In Charter, but was not correctly implemented)
- Any use of Fiat that does not meet strict standards of benefit to the site (as determined by admins and staff as a whole) is considered an abuse of Fiat power (intentional or not) and is subejct to invalidation and potential disciplinary action.
- Administrators have an obligation to explain to staff the results and reasoning of a Fiat review upon request, on O5 unless there is a special reason not to. Therefore, a use of Fiat must be reasonably available for admins to review, or it is automatically invalid and likely abusive. (Staff intent, but not in Charter)
- Administrators have an obligation to "roll back" or "revoke" all applicable effects of a misued, abused, or simply ill-considered use of Fiat, unless they determine that this rollback would cause damage to the site, community, or staff. This determination would be a second use of Fiat, for accountability purposes. (Staff intent, but not in Charter)
- Fiats are further limited by the consequence of misusing or abusing them. The standard consequence for intentional abuse of Fiat is removal of administrator rank and a standard permanent ban (which typically means appeal after a year). This doesn't take other disciplinary options off the table. (Staff intent, but only partly in Charter)
- The standard consequence for unintentional abuse (including misuse) of Fiat is a warning if it happens once, and Censure if it happens more than once. Standard Censure lengths are 1, 2, and 3 months, but other lengths are possible. This doesn't take other disciplinary options off the table. (Staff intent, but not in Charter)
- Administrative Fiat is a single action. Fiat should not be used to create new, stand-alone policy from whole cloth. Going against this this may be considered abuse of power depending on circumstance.
How can a Fiat be overriden?
- Any other admin may use their Fiat to counter the Fiat at any time. If so, no policy or rule or process change is made. The original Fiat decision is negated. To proceed, a decision must be made elsewhere, such as by immediate admin review — but the standard expectation is that the decision will be made via O5 discussion. Both admins must state their Fiat reasoning.
- The negation of one admin's Fiat by another cannot be overridden except by a larger group of admins or a vote by site staff.
- Overriding may occur as a result of admin review.
- Any staff member may request an additional admin review, bringing more evidence/reasoning for why the Fiat decision should be changed. This may be done anywhere, from in private to on O5. Admins have the same obligation to explain to staff the results and reasoning of an additional Fiat review as they do for a first Fiat review.
- Any use of Fiat is subject to O5 discussion. Admins are expected to take objections to their actions very seriously, and if any administrator does not do so, then they may be considered unfit to keep their position, and subject to disciplinary action and/or other accountability processes.
How does Fiat review happen?
Administrators are required to review all uses of Fiat that they are aware of.
Currently, there is no formal logging or review system for Fiats. The original staff intent was that "present" admins would review in the single existing staff chat, but the structure of staff chat has splintered, and therefore Fiats have not been reviewed much (let alone countered) for a long time, even though this was common for several years after Charter creation.
There is an additional problem here: if something is the responsibility of an entire group, then it's hard to actually hold that group accountable as they invetiably suffer from diffusion of responsibility.
I'm proposing a set of reforms to address these issues.
PROPOSED REFORMS:
- The Administrator using Fiat must ensure their use of Fiat is reviewed by Administrators and approved using the "Rule of Three."
- If Review is not completed within 1 week, the Administrative Fiat becomes invalid and the Administrator must inform all involved with the situation within a reasonable time period (1 week by default if the Fiating Administrator is Active).
- Any Staff member may request at any time the results of the Fiat Review and the identities of the Administrators who reviewed the Fiat.
- Administrators are obligated to respond unless they assess reasonable concern of abuse or harassment, in which case they still must give the results of the Review.
- Fiat Review results must be made public to staff. This may be done in summary form on O5, or a replacement may be determined by administrators. If these results are not made public within 1 week, the Fiat is not invalidated but becomes "unenforceable" until results are made public to staff.
NOTEs:
- Making Fiat review results and potentially some discussions public has been suggested independently by numerous staff, though the recommended method has varied drastically.
- This reform may be implemented by Group Admin Fiat or staff vote.
Hang on, what's the Rule of Three?
Under "Rule of Three," a vote must pass with either 3-0, 4-1, 5-2, or 6-3. In the case of 10 or more votes, a supermajority of those voting is required for it to pass.
"Rule of Three" is informally used as a default voting option every time small groups make a decision.
What should happen during a Fiat review?
Recap from the Charter:
Each use of [Fiat] is reviewed by administrators to determine if that use is abusive or not.
Is that extremely vague? Absolutely. So let's continue.
Which admins have to review a use of Fiat?
This is unwritten policy, but the minimum is supposed to be three, following the "Rule of Three." All active admins who are present should have a chance to weigh in, to avoid risk of a couple friends rubber-stamping a decision.
PROPOSED REFORM:
- I recommend that all administrators who are active (non-Reserve) and present be required to weigh in (or explicitly decline to weigh in) within 1 week.
What's an abusive use of Fiat?
One that harms or could harm the site, community, or staff. This could be very direct (deleting SCP articles) or indirect (damaging accountability processes).
This is intended to be read very broadly. Using administrative power inappropriately or for no good reason is almost always considered to be potentially harmful because it sets a precedent in the minds of witnesses that admins can just "do whatever they want."
Due to the massive potential effects of a Fiat, a "misuse of Fiat" is almost always considered identical to "an abusive use of Fiat". However, intent, impact, and severity matter for the consequences.
For instance, a single Fiat made as a clearly good-faith mistake with no discernable consequence could potentially result in voiding the Fiat and nothing more than requiring the administrator to not to do that again.
How do administrators determine if a use of Fiat is abusive?
There are a plethora of standards that administrators have historically used to assess this, which I will list some of.
These standards are all also unwritten policy. However, unwritten does not mean unusable — nor does it mean unenforceable specifically in the case of Fiat, because administrators themselves can grant enforceability to these standards, and, indeed, are expected to, unless staff at large deem them inappropriate.
Administrators are expected to use their best judgment when reviewing a Fiat, and take into account any feedback from staff members.
Fiat Standards
(This is not a complete list.)
MAIN STANDARDS
- Did the Fiat benefit the site in any way? The only reason administrators have Fiat is to benefit the site. So — did it?
- Did the Fiat follow any of the main purposes of Fiat? (To fast-forward or skip site processes during emergencies, to cut red tape that's getting in the way of positive change, or to prevent damage to the community or the site.) If not — there had better be a very good reason.
SECONDARY STANDARDS
- Did the Fiat go against the will of staff? If so, did it have a good explanation (such as a policy benefit)?
- Was the Fiat for no stated reason or for no good reason?
- Did the Fiat seem like a good or appropriate way to use administrative power?
- Was the Fiat used to violate a rule in a way that demonstrably harmed someone?
- Was someone demonstrably harmed?
- Was a staff member unreasonably prevented from doing their job?
- Did the Fiat fall into typical intended uses of Fiat… or into typical misuses?
STANDARDS FOR GOING AGAINST THE WILL OF STAFF
- Did this Fiat prevent an actual or potential abuse of power?
- Did this Fiat prevent a severe danger to the community?
- If the Fiat slowed down discussion or implementation directly, was there a good reason?
- If the Fiat stopped discussion or implementation indefinitely, was there a good reason?
- Did the admin intentionally and inappropriately ignore the advice of others?
Intended Fiat Uses.
Here are some common established uses of Admin Fiat that are not usually an abuse of power. For all of these, admins retain their obligation to listen to the rest of staff and other admins, and all uses must be subject to Admin Review. This is not a complete list.
- To emergency ban trolls and spammers. (That's from the Charter. I think the next part is unwritten policy.) This ban must be confirmed by the Disc Team to remain valid, and is not required to go through Admin Review unless a complaint is submitted to any staff member (who must deliver it to Admins).
- When an admin determines that a use is common sense, needed by staff for any reason, shouldn't need a vote, and should just be done. (Getting this right is very important.) Examples have often included extending timers, patching unforseen policy issues, or granting permission to ignore an existing policy when all staff clearly agree (or to avoid a clear, serious abuse of power).
- When an admin determines that discussion or topic is verging dangerously close to producing a proposal that is underdiscussed, or has major flaws that will sink it despite being popular, and further discussion is needed.
- When an admin determines that a topic is not ready to be addressed/discussed by staff and engaging in that topic will damage staff as a whole.
- Implementing a policy, rule, or process change "by staff acclamation."
- Using Group Fiat to grant a Team more power to get their job done.
- In a Vote thread, using Fiat to cancel obviously partisan vote options (such as omitting options that other staff desired) that blatantly attempt to sway voting.
Misuse of Fiat.
Here are some common established uses of Admin Fiat that are usually considered an abusive use of Fiat. This is not a complete list.
- Using Fiat with the intent to hurt a user.
- Using Fiat for a primarily personal benefit.
- Using Fiat and refusing to explain why to anyone.
- Using Fiat to inappropriately evade or damage accountability processes.
- Deleting any page without following established deletion processes and/or without transparency.
- Implementing a policy, rule, or process change against "staff acclamation" by the sole will of a single administrator (or only a very few).
- Using Fiat in such a way as to avoid review.
- Making a Fiat in private without explicit approval by all present administrators or administrator members of AHT.
- Using Fiat to concentrate power more than is necessary.
- Using individual Fiat to grant a Team more power without full administrative approval and understanding.
- Using individual Fiat to remove power from a Team.
Q & A
Q: If Fiat is for cutting red tape, who gets to decide what counts as "cutting red tape"?
A: The administrator should consult relevant "present" Staff, typically including appropriate Team members.
Q: What's the use of staff acclamation?
A: Typically, Fiat backed by general staff acclamation establishes lack of Fiat abuse, even if the decision was a mistake. Or, if the Fiat was abusive despite the acclamation, establishing possible lack of intention to abuse.
Q: Hang on, why do we need Fiat? Why can't we just pass policy directly by staff acclamation?
A: Due to the necessity of accountability and responsibility for "outside the norm" policy and rules changes falling on admins.
- "Staff acclamation" requires at least 1 admin approving it via Fiat because then that admin is accountable for the decision of "all or most staff".
- This is the necessary downside to the power of Fiat — the admin is solely vulnerably to the consequences of its use. Otherwise, go get a vote.
- "Staff acclamation" is unwritten policy, but Fiat is written, meaning we couldn't use disciplinary action on anyone except the admins who approved or used Fiat to make it "valid". This is intentional as a way of making admins responsible / accountable for major site decisions that skip an O5 vote.
- No matter who does the Thing that didn't get an O5 vote, the admin (or admins) who was most involved is who is held responsible and may get the punishment if it was Bad. (Barring specific conduct issues on the non-admin-staffs' part, of course… though if an admin told them to, it's on the admin solely.)
Q: Why call an admin's inappropriate use of power "an abusive use of Fiat," when you could just call it an abuse of power? Doesn't calling it a Fiat legitimize it?
A: Calling something a Fiat or not doesn't make it more or less legitimate. It's mostly usefuly for mechanical purposes: to determine necessity of review, appropriate use of power, grounds for punishment, etc. If an admin does something inappropriate without using administrative power (or the backing thereof), it's not Fiat.
EDIT:
The Charter states:
A policy proposal must include information on exact amendments to be made, which guides are to be edited, and a list of people responsible for its implementation.
Q: Which guides are to be edited?
A: At minimum, the Site Charter. Please let me know about any other guides that need updating.
Q: Who are the people responsible for implementation?
A: I am responsible for implementation, and if there are no objections, I plan to edit the Charter to link to the top post of this thread, which will be edited with any revisions. Staff may follow appropriate processes to revise this, as always. Many Meats will be responsible for deciding how or whether to change this approach with the Charter rewrite.
I'm not yet putting a timer on this thread because I don't fully understand how that process has changed in the Modern Era…
…and, crucially, because I am not going to make this thread my primary focus at present, because I'm devoting my limited SCP time primarily to the Disc Process as laid out here: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5128026
Anyway, that's it. Comments, questions, suggestions, etc are all welcome.
