User:Collect/ACE2015

2015 questions:

Questions from Collect


Each nominee shall be given a chance to answer this set of questions, with each question being valued on a scale of 0 to 5.

For my view of answers to other questions posed, see User:Collect/ACE2015/cribsheet

Grading is the last part of this - I note here which candidates have not yet answered all of my questions posed:

For the questions I posed, the grading is based on whether the person actually sees the same issues I see regarding ArbCom.

For the first question - the question is about what the goal and function ("ambit") of ArbCom is or should be.

The second question seeks to elicit positions about whether impartiality must be assumed without strong evidence to the contrary, or whether even a hint of partiality ("involvement") is enough to cast doubt on an person's absolute neutrality in a case.

The third question seeks to see how candidates weigh equity v. process. Here I admit to my own bias - equity is the proper primary foundation here, and those who prefer "process" get lower grades. Those who insist on following the exact rules in arbitration cases at all times, even where equity is tossed out the window, fail.

18:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Grading: Answers which show no particular original thought will get a "Gentleperson's 'C'".

Internally contradictory answers, or answer which appear to fail in understanding anything in my opinion can manage to get a zero only by really trying hard to do so. 0.5 to 1.5 is the usual "failing grade", and 4 to 4.5 is nearly perfect.

The goal is to use questions as a tool to understand the thought processes of candidates more than anything else. A total score of 10.5 will be the cut-off for "recommended" and any scores 7 or less will be an outright "F". 7.5 to 10.0 will be a "C." I do not base any of this on personal opinions about any arbitrator candidates, nor do I reduce scores for "non-admins" or the like. Collect (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)