Sounds like you answered your own question.
Not really.
I don't think there was an official policy developed as to how we should handled this. So far, most cases had a pretty clearly dominant verdict choice.
Vellos has concluded we would go with a 3-day lock. "Most votes" method would say that we go with a 3-day lock. "Average of votes" method would say we go with a 2-day lock.
No method is perfect. Working with averages encourages people to vote for extremes to better sway in the direction they want. But working with "most votes" only, you can get someone declared innocent if 3 people vote for innocence, while 2 call for warning only, 2 for 1-day lock, 2 for 2-day lock, and 2 more for three-day lock (for a total of 8 people calling for guilty against 3 for innocent).
It can obviously be two-step as well, which I think we have assumed thus far, which means that you first tally the total innocent votes and count them against the total guilty votes, and then stop considering the innocent votes for the sanction decision if a guilty verdict was decided.
Just seems to me like we should have a clearer protocol as to how we decide sanctions in cases where we don't all vote for the same thing.
