NOTICE:
This is a sandbox page.
It is not approved or active policy. It is a draft, and as such, may be incomplete.
Recusal broadly refers to the act of excluding an individual from a case due to a potential conflict of interest that may prevent them from judging the situation impartially. Recusal is commonly invoked in disciplinary proceedings of notable individuals or staff members within the SCP community, though may also be invoked in other circumstances. This policy intends to outline the general circumstances in which recusal is necessary, when it is not necessary, and when it is the responsibility of staff to enforce recusal.
Necessity of Recusal
Recusal is necessary when a Conflict of Interest (CoI) is present. CoIs take several forms, the pertinent ones outlined as follows:
- Relational Conflict of Interest: Occurs when an individual overseeing a case has direct personal ties to an involved party in such a way that would directly influence their judgement or decision-making.
- For example, if User A and User B were frequent writing collaborators and spoke frequently, it is likely User A would have a CoI in User B's case as they would not want to risk ruining their interpersonal relationship.
- Another example includes if User B had direct animosity towards User A, which may incentivize User A to retaliate.
- Personal Conflict of Interest: Occurs when an individual overseeing a case would directly benefit from the outcome of a decision. Notably, this form of CoI can occur without a second party, and can be applied outside of Disciplinary proceedings as well.
- For example, if User A has displayed interest in obtaining a particular SCP mainlist slot for their own work, and a decision against User B would free that slot in the future.
- Financial Conflict of Interest: Occurs when an individual overseeing a case has financial incentives to rule in a particular party's favor.
- For example, if User A worked for User B's company, User A would have a CoI, as they'd be more likely to rule in favor of their employer for financial stability or favors.
If it is believed that an individual possesses a conflict of interest that may seriously impair their ability to come to an unbiased or impartial conclusion, said individual should either recuse themselves or be recused from the case. The above list is not exhaustive, and other forms of CoI may be invoked if identifiable.
Recusal Implementation
If an individual is recused from a case, they are not allowed to participate in the case in any capacity, including commenting, voting, or assisting in its processes. This extends to off-site chat platforms as well. Recused staff members should not serve as points of contact for the case; if they are requested to forwards pertinent evidence, it should be forwarded to another non-recused staff member through direct communications, who should then forward the materials.
An individual may choose to recuse themselves should they believe they have a conflict of interest with the case. In this instance, they should specify what their CoI is prior to recusing, then voluntarily remove themselves from the case's discussion. An individual may not recuse for any reason other than the three CoIs listed above; if they wish to be recused for another reason, it must be performed by the team captain.
If an individual is believed to have a conflict of interest by the team at large or the team captain, they may be forcefully recused from the case, provided a CoI can be identified. If the recused individual believes the CoI to be invalid, they may appeal the recusal to the Administrators, who should review he situation or appoint an unaffiliated admin to do so.
All directly involved parties of a case are automatically recused. Nonetheless, individuals recused in this manner may still interact with the case as an outside party (such as, for instance, to submit evidence or counter-evidence through another member of the team), or interact with the case in a matter permitted by staff policy (such as commenting on public Vote of No Confidence threads or demotion proceedings).
A recusal — whether self-applied or applied to others — should not be invoked in the following situations:
- The individual being recused does not wish to comment on the case.
- In these instances, it is better to explicitly state their abstention or a desire not to be involved, rather than claim an inability to become involved due to bias.
- The individual being recused had a non-significant relationship with a major party in the case.
- Recusal is only necessary when the relationship between the individual and the other party is enough to distort judgement or affect impartiality.
- The individual being recused has no identifiable CoI with the case.
- Recusal should not be used to remove a staff member's involvement with a case unless there is a specific conflict of interest that can be identified.
Should more than 50% of a relevant team's staff body be recused from a case, then Administration should provide direct assistance and proceed on the case alongside available staff. In the event this is not possible, feasible, or there are no Administrators without conflict of interest in of themselves, non-CoI Administrators should select the recused staff members with the least conflict of interest (according to their own judgements) and allow them to un-recuse from the case. Individuals reinstated to the case in this manner must be explicitly noted as having a conflict of interest — along with the nature of the CoI — in any public proceedings (or in staff-available spaces if the case is not public).
Non-Disciplinary Conflicts of Interest
The above guidelines similarly apply to non-disciplinary teams in regards to creation and implementation of policy. Some examples include:
- A disciplinary team member intentionally overextending a rule's intended purpose to more harshly punish a user they dislike.
- A staff member presenting a policy that would permit (presently) unallowed content on the Wiki for the purposes of posting said content themselves.
- An administrator amending the donations policy via Fiat to grant exception to a particular third party for personal gain.
In these cases, the relevant staff members should not participate in staff functions related to their conflict of interest.
If a staff member wishes to present a policy for creation despite having a CoI, they are required to obtain permission from their team captain (or from an administrator if the captain is unavailable or the staff member in question), and explicitly note their conflict of interest in the policy thread itself.
A failure to recuse / disclose CoIs during policy creation or implementation — or continued involvement in spite of recusal — may result in disciplinary action, left to the discretion of the Disciplinary Team depending on the severity of the infraction. If the infraction occurs within the Disciplinary Team, disciplinary action is left to the discretion of Administration.