Jump to content

Home

Recuse


Amidala from Chop Shop
 Share

Recommended Posts

re·cuse ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ri-kyooz)

tr.v. re·cused, re·cus·ing, re·cus·es

To disqualify or seek to disqualify from participation in a decision on grounds such as prejudice or personal involvement.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English recusen, from Old French recuser, from Latin recsre : re-, re- + causa, cause.]

 

[Download Now or Buy the Book]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

 

Main Entry: re·cuse

Pronunciation: ri-'kyüz

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Forms: re·cused; re·cus·ing

Etymology: Anglo-French recuser to refuse, from Middle French, from Latin recusare, from re- back + causari to give a reason, from causa cause, reason

1 : to challenge or object to (as a judge) as having prejudice or a conflict of interest

2 : to disqualify (as oneself or another judge or official) for a proceeding by a judicial act because of prejudice or conflict of interest <an order recusing the district attorney from any proceeding may be appealed by the district attorney or the Attorney General —California Penal Code> —re·cuse·ment noun

 

 

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

 

 

recuse

 

v 1: disqualify oneself (as a judge, for example) in a particular case 2: challenge or except to a judge as being incompetent or interested, in canon and civil law

 

I think it would be a good idea as a general rule that if a moderator of any type has a high level of personal involvement with the subject being discussed in a thread they should then recuse themselves from behaving as a moderator in that particular thread. Otherwise, the conflict of interest is obvious and might lead them to behave differently then they would otherwise. There are always other moderators, super moderators, and administrators available if necessary. It's just impossible for any human being to remain fair and objective in that situation.

 

I think that this is a good universal principle in general for all forums and moderators, and it isn't directed at any particular individual.

 

Just my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
uhm i remember the guy called tfighterpilot was banned because of a problem like that, i hope it won't happens again

 

I believe it was for creating a new account when his original was temp-banned for flaming.

 

I could be totally dead wrong, though (probably am, because my memory ain't what it once was).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
:p

Huzzah! Not only did your first post make no sense, now you've gone with the single smilie post of no point or purpose towards explaining yourself!

 

As far as such things go, however, I'd consider this an official warning to not do that again. Single word posts are frowned on when they contribute, and we terribly dislike single smilie posts that do nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thread derailed by silliness.

 

Actually Amidala, that is our general principle and has been for a long long time (at least on the JK.net/Star Wars side of LF).

 

Now of course if a certain moderator were to be "picked on" (hypothetically speaking) and he or she excuses himself/herself from said problem area, and the other moderators decide that he/she (the moderator in question) was unfairly attacked, they may decide to take action, even if it was the same action the singled out moderator may have been intending to make!

 

So one should not assume that just because a moderator has personal involvement that "justice" will not be done (as descerned by the forum leaders of course).

 

So there's your politik for the day, enjoy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...