43 replies to this topic

[Whitey]

In light of the recent happenings (Kacen's ban among others) I suggest the following.

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.

Edited by Machairi, 22 January 2007 - 23:25.

[Warbz]

i like the idea, but dont u think the place is becoming a little power hungry?

[Whitey]

Wait, what does power-hunger have to do with it?

[Foxhound]

How about I elect the jury: Site admins, moderators, and staff. No questions.

[Whitey]

No. That doesn't do it. We need "commoners". People who can see it not from above, where the staff sit, but from below, measuring the crime from a different angle.

You cannot tell me that the staff/administrators have the same views as the public. They don't.

Edited by Machairi, 22 January 2007 - 21:55.

[Slightly Wonky Robob]

but who has the right to chose those people, whoever gets to choose, that could be considered unfair

[Foxhound]

Then we go by popular opinion. If this is just an attempt at getting Kacen back, not even 5 people want him back. 5 vs. about 40 active and semi-active members.

Plus, you're forgetting that the staff, mods, and admins hold the power.

[Whitey]

It must be a jury of peers. You know that. I don't consider staff peers of regular members. They are above them in the hierarchy.

And no this is not an attempt to get Kacen back.

Now who has the right to choose these people? This would be tough, but only as tough as the rest of the decisions made by staff anyway. I'd recommend a topic for nominations. Those who receive the most nominations get put in a poll and are voted in. Much like an election.

This should have absolutely nothing to do with the members' rank or modding skill. For instance; foxhound, bob, nuker, chaka, and others could get voted in, it simply would depend on nominations and votes.

Those who get in would be elected so it would be fair.

You see what I'm saying?

Edited by Machairi, 22 January 2007 - 22:02.

[Warbz]

by power hungry i mean everyone seems to want to be in a position of higher power within the forums.
i say we leave all the punishments etc. to the staff/moderators.
they have that position of power for a reason

Edited by Alchemist, 22 January 2007 - 22:01.

[Whitey]

But that power is a double-edged sword in decision making in many cases.

The jury would only have access to a jury board and power in cases of someone being banned.

Moderators and admins are the executive branch.
We must have the judicial branch to work properly and fairly.

Let me explain why I feel this should be applied to the forum.

I am a member at C&C Files. I was recently banned for insulting other members and the staff. From my view and probably a few others, I was only questioning a decision, but the staff only saw it from their view, looking down on me. I was banned for a week after negotiating it from 10 days; and that took over an hour and a half. I don't mind being banned but I do think it was unfair; thus my suggestion here.

Edited by Machairi, 22 January 2007 - 22:08.

[E.V.E.]

To be honest, I dont realy see a reason in this.
Forum Mods are there for a Reason, so are Staff, if they need some more Personell to take care of the Forum, i´ll gues they would just chose one.

It´s the Job of the Staff and/or Moderators. I dont realy know why no Mods should be able to see hidden Forums. So they can Discuss something - no need because the chosen Staff is able to think for its own ...

My Opinion.

- E.V.E.

[Whitey]

No. The staff is executive. Executives can't always see both sides of a decision. That is why they make them and that is why the judicial adjusts them accordingly. It makes for a more well-balanced experience for everybody.

[MLRS]

I completly agree with this. After the pretty retarted and mean acts of some individuals, this sounds like a great idea.

Edited by MLRS, 22 January 2007 - 23:01.

[retry_1]

pointless...if you think the admins are unfair appeal to them privately so they can explain their decision untill you do that stop whining about fairness

[Whitey]

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.

Surely you understand the idea of a branched government system?

[CodeCat]

One view isn't enough. That's why there are 9 decision-makers altogether.

[Whitey]

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.

[Slightly Wonky Robob]

the sheer fact that we were picked as staff means that we do understand both points of view, and we are reasonable, i can understand in certain cases we may have opinionated descisions, but thats why we have discussions amongs ourselves

[Whitey]

"the sheer fact that we were picked as staff means that we do understand both points of view, and we are reasonable"

That's the superiority idea I'm against, clear as day.

I'm really trying not to sound offensive so forgive me if I do.

In saying that sentence, you admit that you are better for your job than others. You admit that you are better than another. This is true, but it isn't what must be seen in a jury. A jury needs to be out of the blue. So I retract my idea of "most competent" decision makers, what needs to be picked should be random. And I retract the permanent idea; it should be per-case.

[CodeCat]

You sound dangerously socialist Machairi, you know that?

[Whitey]

Yeah I'm aware, but some government is necessary, no matter what the case.

[Slightly Wonky Robob]

thats exactly the point, some goverment, i.e. staff/co-admin/admin/forum moos

[Whitey]

and that makes the executive and legislative branch. We have nobody of a lower level putting in their thoughts on it.

Oh, and forum moos?

[Prophet of the Pimps]

Machairi, on 23 Jan 2007, 04:08, said:

No. The staff is executive. Executives can't always see both sides of a decision. That is why they make them and that is why the judicial adjusts them accordingly. It makes for a more well-balanced experience for everybody.

Too bad i cant show you the arguments that the staff has had between themselves on a few contentious issue.
On this forum Both Admins and Staff have the same right and most decision are taken on majority bases. And from the staff profile you can see that we really have a diverse background and are more then capable of looking at all the POV.

[Crazykenny]

Well i think this is a thing, persons with a higher rank need to solve