given the existence of any group of persons, can it be argued that it is necessary to have a process where a member can appeal decisions when one is stonewalled by members of the group who hold decision making power over other members of the group?
Disclaimer: i am not a philosopher AFAIK.
Generic pattern scenario
(where N is empowered only to comment;
M is empowered to comment and to moderate comments,
including the power to delete comments;
T is a "team leader" and has M's empowerments
plus is empowered to overrule M):
in a forum, Q asks a question;
M deletes N's reply,
N on appeal to M and T is stonewalled.
I want to start from the premises of a basically democratic system that operates on a principle of fairness and has a commitment to fair play.
I think given these assumptions there is moral requirement that there be an objective and fair appeals process, i.e., where N could "go over T's head". (unfortunately, in day to day life, often N has no recourse beyond agreeing to disagree which often means simply to capitulate.)
We emulate this in the legal system with higher and higher levels of court ~~ we have these under the idea that detached sober thought and consideration is possible from empowered parties who are not directly involved in the process that led to an appeal.
Are there any philosophies that speak to my intuition? What sort of argument is offered in favor of something like this?