43 replies to this topic

[Overdose]

This is a forum not a nation. Just trust the decision of the forum staff and mods because they've done a good job so far.

[Soul]

I'm in between on this idea, as I'm not sure which side to take.

Both have a good point.

[Zancloufer]

Staff and Admins do get a little more cocky then when they where members. It is a interesting idea, but you would have to choose the right members and they could only vote on stuff the staff bring up, not their own ideas.

[logical2u]

Here are your options, admins: Either you create a massive cabal of "higher-ups" destroying the integrity of the forum by creating a "Boy's Club" essentially or the Wikipedia Admins of ES. It becomes a status symbol and not a job.

Or, you get continually pressured to have a "More neutral point of view", ignore it, and then get complaints every day to build a cabal, because you "Oppress the minority", blah blah blah.

Essentially, electing a jury creates one more level of (If not real, than perceived) bias.

But you can't exactly not have one either: It's the job of the admins, technically, to fill the role of Judge, Jury, and Executioner.

If members have enough influence to be considered proper "jury" members, than it stands to reason they should be admins.

There.

[Dauth]

The staff are there for a reason and do a good job, what i dont want is a foul layer of beuracracy between me and my enjoyment. its works as it is and should be left well alone.

[Sic]

I'm against. People have been chosen as staff for a reason, you know. If they were power hungry beasts then this forum would be anarchy. It's not anarchy atm afaik and it will never be as long as the current staff conquers it. The staff most likely make a big discussion on certain events, and there's no need for jury as they're the jury themselves.

[Sgt. Nuker]

Machairi, on 22 Jan 2007, 18:11, said:

No no no no no.

Why can't anyone see the point of this? Because there certainly is a very blatant one.

Staff can be unreasonable. I know for a fact that they can. This is, again, no offense to anyone, its fact.

One view of the subject isn't always enough. It must be seen from other angles from other members. I respect our staff here, I respect them quite much, but sometimes regular members can make better decisions.

The point is to get the views from the people, as staff can be unreasonable to the point that they don't compromise and that they don't reason with the person who speaks with them on MSN.

Before I start, pretend that tag under my avatar doesn't say "Staff". Humor me, and pretend it says "member".

Bull. That is a bold-faced lie, and you know it Machairi. The staff can be unreasonable? So you're implying that all of us are unreasonable, when in fact each of us have a seperate moral code, and are in fact individuals in our own right. So there is no "one view" as you say, but in fact there are 9. I dare say you have no idea how this forum is run by those who have moderator or Admin access. We deligate, vote, and discuss critical topics and pressing matters as soon as they present themselves to us. The simple fact of the matter is that when someone breaks a rule, those in authority must take action. When we do so, we're seen half the time as doing the right thing, and the other half, as if we're commiting some cardinal sin. So what are we supposed to do? Not punishing someone for breaking one or more rules? If we did that, you'd have us all sacked, and there'd be pandemoneum on the forum. I sense some resentment on your part just because you were banned from the Deep End for several months for a post you claim was not racist (I beg to differ, and so does the rest of the Staff/Admins, and several members). You got busted, and took it out on the staff, when in fact, it was your own fault.

"as staff can be unreasonable to the point that they don't compromise and that they don't reason with the person who speaks with them on MSN." That's a lie as well. I challenge you to take a trip and view the "Unban Kacen please" thread. Hunter reasoned with Kacen, which is why Kacen was allowed to post one final time. Just because you don't see or don't know of what goes on between those who reap what they sow, or the conversations the Staff/Admins have with the accused party/parties, doesn't mean that they don't happen. CodeCat tried to reason with you, but you would have nothing of it. When that happens, all attempts to reason are given up.

Machairi, on 22 Jan 2007, 18:17, said:

And all of them have other duties, all of them are above normal members. All of them are not peers of the standard goer. All of them feel superior in the fact that they have more responsibility than others. This cannot be the case for a fair decision. They need their view, but others need theirs.

A jury is never made up of Bush and his cabinet is it? No. It doesn't work that way, its not fair.

"All of them are above normal members"....right, and I'm the Queen Mum. Generalizing again are we? You never learn do you? No, seriously, we're no more above a "normal" member than you are. We've just been thought worthy enough to handle a few more responsibilities. We still put our pants on one leg at a time. My label as "Staff" means nothing in RL, so I, and the other staff/admin members are indeed still the "peers" of the average forum goer, but apparently you've fallen into the label trap. Where, if a member has a "Staff" label under their name, they're no longer considered "average" or "one of us". I wish you'd grow up and realize that there are actions which must be taken. Those actions may not appear "fair" at the time, but for the most part there are few people who step back and realize why an action was taken. You obviously haven't taken that step yet.

"All of them feel superior in the fact that they have more responsibility than others". I can't believe how thick you're laying it on Machairi. Honestly. The way you make it sound, you have us pegged as royal snobs, not someone you can take aside and talk to. We're humans too, so stop making it sound like we're all callus robots with no feelings or mind of our own.

A fair decision? The real question is, what do YOU think is fair? Obviously it'll be different for everyone, but when you're trying to keep order on a forum, you'll try to cater to as many as possible, as far as being "fair" goes. According to your post, we should just let forum offenders go to continue breaking rules and causing havoc. So I guess the next time someone breaks the rules, we should just slap them on the wrist and say: "Now Johnny, you know not to do that again, right?" I assure you, that person will be on the next day trying to see what they can get away with.

You also make it sound as if there are no varying degrees of punishment. Have you not read the rules as far as warnings and bans (temporary and permanent) go? Once is a simple warning, twice is 2 weeks, and a 3rd time is permanent. We've actually been very lenient on this aspect, but this is what's supposed to happen.


Regards,

Major Nuker

[Whitey]

Well then, apparently you missed the no offense.

Now I do refer back at the deep end part, I don't mind it looking back but I feel it was unfair indeed I do. You say it was racist, I say different, member X may say different as well. And even if I had intended racism, it's an opinion, something others were supported for, no matter how offensive.

Psychologically, one of a higher position notices it. There is no arguing that; otherwise you probably wouldn't have made that post. I'm laying it on thick? No, I'm just fairly interested in the idea of a Jury.

I felt like leaving this alone as it is obvious I have lost the argument, but in reviving it, I must say this in my defense.

I'm not insulting the God Damned staff.

I'm entitled to my opinion here, unless you say otherwise, which would back up my opinion. My opinion stands that one with executive powers should never hold the judicial powers as well.

A jury consisting of VARYING member personalities, as done in reality, works best. As the varying positions, opinions, viewpoints, etc allow a compromise better than a bunch of executives.

I know I can talk to a staff member outside or on the forum, but they are still not like me.

In my defense, I may be wrong on how you staff operate, but I don't think so. The administrators have the main say, the staff sway them either way. If I'm correct on this, Imagine the staff like people around a giant ball, the administrators, who have their own power to roll as well. The administrators are pushed to a decision.

Why can't we streamline it and open it up more? The staff are the "model citizens" here, which makes their mindset roughly similar, though obviously not the same, so the ball always reaches a proper, existing destination fairly quickly.

What if the staff didn't have to push the damn ball? The Jury wouldn't be pushing one either. Each person would have equal power, until they came to an agreement, so one person does not fall behind. You know how a jury works, all 12 must agree. Though possibly a little slower, this makes things just that much more fair.

I'm not insulting the staff, I'm bringing the idea of a jury, telling how it could work better than staff.

[Lord Atlantis]

People, calm down. The staff and admins aren't corrupt. They aren't dictators. They are real people. Even though I am not staff, I can imagine a Staff/Admin forums where all these problems are discussed.

No to this entire idea.

-Lord_Atlantis

[Sgt. Nuker]

Machairi, on 24 Jan 2007, 23:17, said:

Well then, apparently you missed the no offense.


I felt like leaving this alone as it is obvious I have lost the argument, but in reviving it, I must say this in my defense.


I'm entitled to my opinion here, unless you say otherwise, which would back up my opinion. My opinion stands that one with executive powers should never hold the judicial powers as well.

A jury consisting of VARYING member personalities, as done in reality, works best. As the varying positions, opinions, viewpoints, etc allow a compromise better than a bunch of executives.

I know I can talk to a staff member outside or on the forum, but they are still not like me.

In my defense, I may be wrong on how you staff operate, but I don't think so. The administrators have the main say, the staff sway them either way. If I'm correct on this, Imagine the staff like people around a giant ball, the administrators, who have their own power to roll as well. The administrators are pushed to a decision.

Why can't we streamline it and open it up more? The staff are the "model citizens" here, which makes their mindset roughly similar, though obviously not the same, so the ball always reaches a proper, existing destination fairly quickly.

What if the staff didn't have to push the damn ball? The Jury wouldn't be pushing one either. Each person would have equal power, until they came to an agreement, so one person does not fall behind. You know how a jury works, all 12 must agree. Though possibly a little slower, this makes things just that much more fair.

I'm not insulting the staff, I'm bringing the idea of a jury, telling how it could work better than staff.

If my post appeared to have a "I'm pissed off" tone, you'd be right for assuming it, but it's not what I meant to sound like.

The reason that the staff and Admins are the ones making the decision is because it is an efficient system. You've heard the phrase "too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the pot"? If there are too many people (21 if your idea for a jury would go through) then decisions would take forever. We already have to deal with timezones in some occasions, adding more people to the mix isn't a solution.

I know you weren't insulting the staff per say, but the presentation hid that fact. I'm not saying this to sound anti-Machairi, but this is the view of one person. The majority of posts in this thread seem pro-Staff/Admin, which is to say that they feel our jobs are being done as fairly as possible. Now, if this was not the case, maybe, MAYBE, we'd reconsider, but this is not the case.

"I know I can talk to a staff member outside or on the forum, but they are still not like me."

How so? Sure, personality and beliefs wise, we're not all the same, but that's a given. The title of "Staff" shouldn't change the way someone on this forum views another. I'm really no different from you or member X or even Hunter. It's just the level of access (and in some cases maturity) we have on this forum. And yes, you are entitled to your opinion. No one may agree with it, but you are free to state your opinion. Keep in mind though, there's a time and place for everything, and you must realize this when making a post. I'm not saying you didn't think when making this thread, I'm just making a general statement.

One further thing before I go there are some discussions regarding the fate of some members, or what we should do with other members that shouldn't see light outside of the staff forum. I'm sure you or others have had instances where they've been in a discussion that you or them have wished to keep secret. The same is true here, but for a different reason. It's not that we don't trust you or anyone else, it's that some of what we discuss in the Staff/Admin thread isn't exactly public material.

Regards,

Nuker

[Prophet of the Pimps]

errrr admins cant take unilateral decisions on any topic. the only difference between staff and Admins is access to the admin control panel. Apart from that every one no matter if they are staff or admin has only one vote. even if you have problems with 1 or 2 staff there are still 7 others that are competent enough to do the job and vote in favour of what you think 'fair' is.

[General]

Imo these who hold the current power in their hands must make a deal between themselves and ban whoever they want .

If they ban me without a reason too , I can't say anything aswell since thats their decision .

Shockwave is a Communist Company afterall

[Dauth]

Im getting slightly sick of this Staff bashing. They do a good job and only ban people as a last resort, they are more leniant than many other forums ive visited.

This is not a ShW its a modding forum with a strong following of ShW.

I dont think ive seen anyone banned or even warned without a real reason, so that comment is redundent.

I very much doubt they want to ban anyone since it does leave a sour taste around the forum. Well rounded people (one of the best descriptions of the staff i can think of) dont inflict punishment without cause and this is most definatly the case.

[bluejedi]

Machairi, on 22 Jan 2007, 21:47, said:

12 forum members are elected as a temporary forum jury for deciding a specific, single case. They have no mod powers, but they have something others don't; viewing of a staff section created specifically for the jury to discuss others' actions.

The Jury would be the deciding factor of punishments dealt, as I feel that it is unfair that a select few high-ranking individuals have the power to decide.

The jury would be a selection of 12 random (but not foolish/reckless) non-moderating members.

Any feedback or suggestions, post below.

Just wanted to throw my 10 pence in. . . .

This reminds me too much of university, I was 1 of 3 students that were involved in major disciplinary decisions involving other students. . It sucked BIG time man.

When I joined this forum it was made perfectly clear "don’t break the rules" and although its a bit daunting when you first join, everything you need to know is there for us to read.

In the great scheme of things it’s not a disastrously bad idea, it just seems totally unnecessary as the dudes/dudets that run this place are doing a damn fine job.

Ps . . . . I like my "GODS" having more power than me. . It makes me feel human and "NON" responsible. . lol

[Athena]

I'd like to add one point here to what staff and admins already replied here.

If you ever think that we enjoy banning people, then you're wrong. It isn't fun at all, which is why we only use it as a last resort. If people, despite our nudges and warnings, still break the board rules.

[Overdose]

Some of you guys are acting like they ban people left to right. This is similar to people who complain about law enforcement. Just don't break the law. The law is good for you and it makes the community a better place to live. The law isn't 100% right, but you can always defend yourself even if you are guilty. The system works, it has worked for over 3500 years.

If the Forum Staff were really that aggressive there would be no one left in the forums and the community would die. This is just overreaction. You can help the Staff by doing your part too. Making the forum a better place to hang out at by being an exemplary member and by telling them where the smoke of the fire is burning.

Edited by Overdose, 25 January 2007 - 19:33.

[Whitey]

On all the banning comments; I feel it is quite the opposite. Some members, in my own opinion, are deserving of more harsh punishments, or punishments at all; being common offenders and whatnot.

[CodeCat]

We can't take action unless either:

- We see the problem ourselves, or
- People notify us of a problem.

Now, since we haven't seen the problem and nobody notified us of any, nothing happened.

[Ascendancy]

I'm not too sure what to say on this. I mean, I've personally never ran into problems with the staff, or even really anyone on this board to this single day. The jury idea is a little weird, to be honest. Though equality might be achieved by this it's more than likely it won't be.

The staff/administrators of the forum have done what I've thought is right when the situation in threads went out of hand or spammy. Now sure, I don't think that's true for every single thread I looked at that has been closed, but a majority of it was done for a good reason.

Those with moderating powers were obviously given to them because they can handle a little more responsibility. Now, I'm not saying the rest of us can't do that. I'm sure there are other people who could do an efficient job as well.

A jury could be effective in making decisions about bans or warnings to members of this forum, but the ultimate decision will always rest with the staff/administrators. Sure, a group of us could come to a consensus that someone should be banned/warned for something wrong or breaking the board's rules, but that doesn't always mean they will agree with our reasoning.

Personally I couldn't face the pressure of being on a jury, unless it was important that my opinion was needed on a critical issue. In short, I don't think that a jury is quite necessary.

-Ascendancy