This is following up on the new grievance here: http://vaxia.org/proposals/grievance-09/12/2014-closure-part-2 and the twenty pages of back story.
One topic that came up is that Sin is not available to present his side of the story. But I notice the issue was submitted against an administrator via the anonymous emailer, which seems to present a conflict in my mind. (From here on, I'm speaking only in general terms, with the Sin/Bast case being a particular example only.)
In the US court system, you have a right to face your accuser and witnesses, which permits you time to ask questions and avoid hearsay. It also gives the witness an opportunity to share the whole truth, and for an accuser to properly articulate her concerns and the evidence collected.
In the case of Vaxia, things are a little different. Anonymous emails let people be whistleblowers, and to speak out against moderators in power without fear of retaliation. Hopefully site management properly represents that person, but it seems there is potential for misrepresenting the accuser (who cannot correct the error without voiding anonymity).
I'd argue the other half, that the moderator cannot confront his accuser, is partially ameliorated by the availability of logs. If you're speaking anonymously, you need to provide the logs to speak for you, as just hearsay won't hold any water (I assume). But the whistleblowers 'losing control' of a case is still an issue, especially with the new double jeopardy rule.
A specific example I could see is if Bastlynn picks on me, then Zxe submits an anonymous claim on that item which presents only half the case, and Bastlynn defends herself successfully. Should I, after the fact, decide to bring the item up, under double jeopardy it needs to be approved by two individuals in a row to go forward. If Zxe is also the tech lead for instance, the case would never move forward, and no one would even know it. Note, this could be a misunderstanding on my point on the process, so if I'm incorrect, it could invalidate everything that follows.
I think this is a case where I agree with all of the tools, but I could see them possibly working together in an undesired manner, and you can't resolve it easily without breaking one of the (good) methods currently in place.
I think the one solution I might recommend would be to split the anonymous mailer in two; you can send a message either to the current lead, or you can send it to the entire community. If you feel your item is being mishandled, you can present your evidence to every voter without outing yourself specifically, or opening up grievance discussion threads to the users without accounts during the voting period. (After voting is done, it could be closed and any spam deleted, if necessary.) A third option is to split 'grievances against moderators', which is just a review by everyone of the logs to determine if this is the sort of moderation we want to see on the page, from 'grievances against individuals', which would require the individual represent herself directly. This might be an exception to the 'double jeopardy' rule, where for instance if Bastlynn was mean to me, I might file for her to get a strike, but also to have a vote of confidence regarding her management capabilities.
I know I may be overthinking this. I just can't quite grok this situation, where a person may or may not be offended, but Bast is defending herself against an anonymous email, who may not be the offended party, while the offended party is not able to represent himself.