Mediation

If a Knight is accused of unsavoury behaviour by any member of the April Knights, all actions must be taken to address the alleged behaviour in a fair manner. This law recognises that these situations can often be resolved with communication, rather than by trial or severe consequence. This Act recognises that these situations can be complicated, and that multiple perspectives and feelings can be involved. The purpose of this Act is not to define who an ‘unsavoury person’ is, but to acknowledge when there has been ‘unsavoury behaviour’ (see A1, SI) that has created a ‘negative impact’ (see A1, SII), and how to address this effectively. The aim of the legislation will be to outline steps that will encourage self-reflection and accountability, while promoting understanding and communication. Therefore, this law outlines what behaviour this Act is relevant to, the occasions in which a mediation may be called for, the appointment of the Moderation Committee, what will happen when more than one Knight is impacted by the behaviour, and what outcomes may be used to resolve the situation. It is hoped that this legislation may free-up the Grandmaster and Upper Council from having to directly deal with all disagreements or conflict.

Article 1 - Definitions

Section I - Unsavoury Behaviour

Unsavoury behaviour is not to be confused with more severe behaviour, such as harassment (e.g. threats, derogatory comments based on gender or race), sharing inappropriate content (e.g. NSFW, explicit images etc.), or invading privacy (e.g. doxing). Unsavoury behaviour is behaviour that is less severe in nature, in which it does not need to be met with immediate repercussions.

Unsavoury Behaviour may include any of the following behaviours (Please note: This list is not exhaustive):

  • Bullying.
  • Spamming.
  • Trolling.
  • Disruptive Behaviour.
  • Ignoring Rules or Instruction.
  • Unfair Treatment or Instruction.
  • Disrespectful Behaviour (e.g. excessive swearing, sarcasm, gaslighting, passive-aggressive remarks).
  • Arguing (e.g. persistently ignoring or dismissing other participants' views, constantly pushing one’s agenda, using fallacious arguments such as mistaken beliefs as facts, or becoming accusatory towards those with opposing views).
  • Malicious False Accusations or Inflammatory Finger Pointing.

If you are unsure of whether the behaviour is considered to be ‘unsavoury’, please see ‘Article 1, Section II - Negative Impact’.

Section II - Negative Impact

There may be times when behaviour is on the borderline of ‘unsavoury’. In these circumstances, it is worth looking at the overall impact the behaviour is having on either the Knights as a whole, or an individual Knight experiencing the behaviour. For this reason, ‘Negative Impact’ has been defined below. The list below is not exhaustive, and should be used as a guide only.

It is worth noting that some April Knights members have either in-person or external online relationships. The April Knights may consider the behaviour as still impacting the April Knights as a whole, or an individual member of the April Knights, if the external interaction is in relation to April Knights matters (e.g. discussing a debate in person as it occurs in the April Knights discord server).

A behaviour may be considered ‘unsavoury’ if:

  • An individual or certain group of people feel alienated or targeted by the behaviour.
  • The behaviour is repeatedly found to be annoying or frustrating.
  • An individual or a group of people feel hurt by the behaviour.
  • The behaviour has created or contributed to a negative atmosphere.
  • An individual or group of people feel ridiculed, unsupported, unwanted, or unheard.
  • An individual or group of people feel a sense of helplessness in their experience of the behaviour.
  • An individual or group of people feel uncomfortable as a result of the behaviour.

A note on whistleblowing: it is not punishable to call out behaviour, even if doing so makes someone feel ridiculed, unwanted, etc. However, it is important to be mindful of how that behaviour was called into question.

Section III - Notifiers

From henceforth, any Knights who identify unsavoury behaviour or have been impacted by unsavoury behaviour will be referred to as ‘Notifier/s’. There is no limit to the amount of Notifiers.

Section IV - Accused

From henceforth, any Knights who are identified as using unsavoury behaviour will be referred to as ‘Accused’.

Section V - Lead Mediator

The Lead Mediator is the mediator who will conduct the mediation session, and will be chosen at the beginning of said mediation, as outlined in Article 3, Section 1. The Lead Mediator has the final say on any decision-making if more than one mediator is assigned to a mediation session.

Article 2 - Moderation Committee

Section I - Formation of the Moderation Committee

A Moderation Committee shall be formed, comprising a minimum of three (3) and maximum of five (5) distinguished Knights of an Officer Rank.

Section II - Selection Criteria for Committee Members

  1. Committee Members must not have been a part of any mediation as an Accused in the past twelve (12) months.
  2. Committee Members must commit to being fully impartial, and be able to recognise when they may be biased. In the case of personal bias, they must be willing to hand over mediation duties to another member on the Committee.
  3. Committee Members must have been active within the April Knights during the last twelve (12) months, including participation in at least one Reddit or April Knights event as a Knight.
  4. To ensure this Act upholds the intention of reducing Grandmaster and Upper Council member involvement in minor conflict, these Officers must not currently occupy a seat on the Upper Council. The exception to this rule is one (1) Advisor may be permitted to be a member of the Moderation Committee if more than one Advisor resides on the Upper Council.
  5. Committee Members must willingly accept the nomination.

Section III - Appointment Process

Committee Members will be nominated by the Grandmaster and confirmed, by a simple majority vote by the Upper and Lower Council, within fourteen (14) days after inauguration of a Grandmaster. Members of either council may suggest candidates to the Grandmaster. The Grandmaster decides whether or not a proposed candidate is fit for the committee, and will have final say on which suggestions are included or excluded from their nominations.

  1. Once the role of Moderation Committee member is accepted, Committee members will be sworn in by a simple majority vote of both councils.
  2. Once sworn in, Moderation Committee members shall serve until the next committee is nominated and sworn in.
  3. If unfit to carry out their duties, Moderation Committee Members may be removed from their position via an absolute majority vote of both councils.
  4. If a replacement Moderation Committee Member is required, for any reason, the appointment process may be repeated for the replacement member.

Section IV - Moderation Committee Responsibilities

Once chosen and sworn in, the Moderation Committee shall be the main body responsible for the mediation of disputes, as outlined in Article 3. The Upper Council may bestow upon them any permissions or roles required to do their responsibilities effectively. Mediators will have the following roles, responsibilities and powers:

  1. Keep the mediation procedure moving as swiftly as possible.
  2. Treat all parties respectfully.
  3. Provide equal offerings of support to all members of the mediation process.
  4. Support Notifiers and Accused to come to a decision about what outcome they want from mediation. However, mediators are not to push for certain outcomes or try to sway either party in a particular direction.
  5. Collect all statements from all parties and determine the best way of sharing them to all parties.
  6. Promote reflection and communication, rather than finger pointing. Remind all parties that the purpose of mediation is not to determine if a person has acted unsavoury, but to recognise that the behaviour had an impact and to find a way to move forward.
  7. Providing guidance on how to proceed with mediation discussions. The mediator is not there to control the conversation, but as an unbiased guide and supporter to all parties.
  8. The mediator may utilise private messages, threads, or channels to conduct proceedings.
  9. In the event that there is confusion over who should be identified as a Notifier or an Accused, the mediator may discard all titles (i.e. refer to all parties equally as participants and avoid any ‘Notifier’ or ‘Accused’ private channels), or use known evidence to determine which party the individual most fits with.
  10. The Lead Mediator can decide that mediation is not the best course of action. In this case, the Lead and any supporting mediators are to report back to the Upper Council with any recommendations on consequences or next steps (see A4, SII: Unsuccessful Mediation).
  11. With consultation from the Upper Council, the Moderation Committee can decide whether it is purposeful to share the outcome of the mediation in a public way.
  12. The Moderation Committee may decide to remove observation (see A3, SII, b) or support person (see A3, SII, a) privileges if they negatively impact on proceedings.
  13. Moderation Committee Members must maintain the confidentiality of the mediation process as much as possible. If confidentiality must be breached, Moderation Committee Members must provide justification and notice to all mediation participants.

Any decisions that need to be made outside of the above responsibilities should be made with consultation from impartial Moderation Committee members or impartial Upper Council Members.

Article 3 - Procedure

All April Knights are expected to promptly and respectfully address unsavoury behaviour. If attempts at resolving the issue in-the-moment are unsuccessful, then the Mediation procedure can begin.

Section I - Mediation Preparation

a) Security Considerations

Before mediation is conducted, if the Grandmaster or the Grand Inquisitor determine that a security risk warrants such actions, a Knight accused may have their privileges temporarily revoked. These may include access to any and all Knight exclusive communication channels. The temporary nature of this preemptive action must be made clear to the accused and any who may witness this. Actions taken for security purposes should not imply unproven guilt.

b) Identifying the Impacted Parties

In the case that mediation is required, a Moderation Committee Member will announce that mediation is required, either by:

  1. Addressing the behaviour privately via DM if there is a singular Knight impacted by the behaviour.
  2. Addressing the behaviour ‘publicly’ if it has occurred in a ‘public’ or ‘Knight-only’ discord channel, including those channels limited to set Knight Roles (e.g. #Lower Council).

The Moderation Committee Member will ask all negatively impacted parties to make themselves known via private message or the ‘#ModerationTicket’ channel. All members who feel they have been negatively impacted are given twenty-four (24) hours to request to be a participant of mediation.

At the end of a twenty-four (24) hour period, the Accused Knight will be informed of how many Notifiers will be partaking, and will be given relevant updates on progress and procedure in the lead up to mediation.

c) Appointment of the Lead Mediator

All Notifiers and Accused must identify their preferences of who they would like to preside over the mediation process as ‘Lead Mediator’ (i.e. identify one or more mediators they believe will be unbiased). AND any mediators they believe would be inappropriate to partake as mediator for this circumstance (Lead or otherwise), with justification. To avoid delays, the Moderation Committee may request this information be provided by Notifiers at the time of identifying themselves as a mediation participant. All attempts should be made to appoint a Lead Mediator within Forty-Eight (48) hours of a mediation announcement.

In the first instance, mediators who have been identified as a preference (excluding any identified as inappropriate with justifiable reasons) will determine whether they are capable of taking on the task of mediator, using the below indicators of suitability. If those with a preference are not suitable, mediators who are neither excluded or preferred will determine whether they are capable of taking on the task of mediator, using the below indicators of suitability.

Indicators of Suitability:

  1. Does not identify themselves as negatively impacted by the Accused's behaviour, regardless of whether they decided to participate in the mediation process as a Notifier or not.
  2. They have the time and capacity to begin mediation within a maximum of three (3) days, and the availability to respond to mediation within the seven (7) days after mediation has been announced (Or two to three (2-3) mediators are chosen that can provide this coverage so that matters are resolved quickly).
  3. They continue to uphold the eligibility requirements to become a Moderation Committee Member.

In the rare instance that no Moderation Committee Members are suitable, the Moderation Committee may elect a Temporary Moderation Committee Member to become Lead Mediator for the duration of the seven (7) days of mediation. A Temporary Moderation Committee Member must meet the criteria as set out in Appointment Process (A2, SII) and indicators of suitability above.

Section II - Mediation Tools

a) Support Persons

As mediation’s purpose is to open communication and promote accountability, it would not be beneficial for any Notifier or Accused to have a ‘representative’, or someone who speaks on or formulates statements on their behalf.

Traditionally, a support person’s role is to act as a semi-silent supportive bystander, meaning they might offer advice to an individual throughout mediation but otherwise do not talk on their behalf. Therefore, a support person may have a relevant role in mediation if a Notifier or Accused feels they need the support of someone directly..

In these cases, a support person must meet the following requirements:

  1. They are not in a position that may influence the outcome of the mediation, whether they would intend to do this or not (e.g. as Lower and Upper Council members hold a position of power and can potentially sway others opinions unintentionally, they are not a suitable candidate for a support person).
  2. They are not a Notifier, Accused, or member of the Moderation Committee themselves.
  3. They agree to only contact the person they are supporting regarding the mediation directly.
  4. They agree to uphold confidentiality of the mediation process.
  5. They have the time and capacity to provide support during the seven (7) days after a mediation is announced.

b) Mediation Observers

Mediation observers should be kept to a minimum to ensure privacy of all parties involved. No observation thread should be made. Those who may view, but not participate in, any private mediation threads created are limited to:

  1. The Grandmaster.
  2. The Grand Inquisitor.
  3. Members of the Moderation Committee that are impartial to the situation.
  4. Support Persons.

Article 4 - Outcomes

Section I - Successful Mediation

The outcome of mediation will depend on the negotiations between the Notifiers and the Accused. Since this Act deals in less-severe but still negatively impactful behaviour, the following outcomes may be appropriate:

  1. An official apology and acknowledgement made privately or publicly.
  2. A warning.
  3. Public admonishment.
  4. Temporary mute for some or all April Knight communication.
  5. A temporary ban on succession/ promotion/ division acceptance for a period of six to twelve (6-12) months.
  6. A temporary role-removal for a period of six to twelve (6-12) months. (e.g. Council Observer role or Builder status revoked).
  7. Transfer to another battalion.
  8. A step down from rank (including demotion from the Upper or Lower Council) with the possibility of reapplication after a set timeframe (a return to rank is never guaranteed).
  9. A temporary exclusion of responsibilities (e.g. Unable to have a final say on Interview acceptance/denial for a period of six to twelve (6-12) months).

The above list is not exhaustive, and more than one outcome may be used to resolve the matter. Once the mediator identifies that proceedings have come to a resolution, the mediator will summarise the mediation process and confirm all parties are willing to mark the matter as resolved. The summary and outcome of the mediation will then be shared with Upper Council, and where appropriate, Lower Council Members (i.e. after non-private conflict).

Section II - Unsuccessful Mediation

Mediation may be deemed ‘unsuccessful’ if:

  1. Mediation remains unresolved after seven (7) days since mediation was announced. This remains valid even if mediation was delayed due to waiting for statements, or mediator availability.
  2. It is clear no resolution can be reached.
  3. Mediators are finding it difficult to keep conversation civil or productive.
  4. The unsavoury behaviour continues.

In this case, the mediator/s can advise the Upper Council on their observations and recommendations for next steps / outcomes. Outcomes may include any of the outcomes listed in Successful Outcomes (A4, SI). Or, the Upper Council may decide the behaviour in question needs more action. If the Upper Council believes further action than outlined in this Act is required, other procedures or legislation may need consultation (e.g. The Trials Act).

Article 5 - Implementation

The Mediation Act will come into effect immediately after majority vote in the Upper and Lower council. The Moderation Committee shall be formed immediately after this bill is established, as outlined in Article 4, and re-formed after each election as per the Appointment Process outlined in Article 2, Section III.