Conquer Club

Concise description:

• A mod team that reviews appealed ban cases.

Specifics/Details:

1. The Supreme Court is made up of 9 members: 4 mods and 5 "non-mods".
   
   1. The 4 mods consist of 1 cheating/abuse mod, 1 discussions mod, 1 chatter, and 1 global mod, as appointed by the Chief Justice (see Article 2).
   2. The 5 "non-mods" are made up of 5 that must be active in the forums, can be trusted to make just decisions (as determined by the Chief Justice), and can either be nominated by the community, or chosen by the Chief Justice.
2. The Supreme Court has a "Chief Justice" that resides over the operation.
   
   1. The Chief Justice is king achilles, or appointed by king achilles.
   2. The Chief Justice determines which appeals are appropriate for the Supreme Court to discuss.
      
      1. Appeals are made via e-ticket.
   3. The Chief Justice gives/enforces the verdict made by the Supreme Court, but does not participate in the Supreme Court's voting, unless the Chief Justice feels a member of the Supreme Court is compromised and cannot make a fair decision because of certain connections, in which case the Chief Justice can fill his or her position or appoint someone else for that case only.
3. The Supreme Court has a set of duties and powers appointed by this "constitution", if you will.
   
   1. The Supreme Court has the power to sustain, reduce, or terminate a ban.
   2. The Supreme Court justices discuss the case and determine whether or not the accused violated their interpretation of the Community Guidelines.
      
      Previous cases or personal interactions with the accused may NOT be used for or against the current case, unless it is applicable.
   3. Supreme Court justices may vote in one of 3 ways: vote to sustain (keep the ban as is), vote to reduce (reduce the ban time), or vote to terminate (end the ban immediately).
      
      1. If 5 or more vote to sustain, the ban stays.
      2. If 5 or more vote to either reduce or terminate, all votes are cleared and the justices revote, but can only vote to reduce or terminate.
         
         1. After the revote, if 5 or more vote to terminate, the ban is terminated immediately.
         2. After the revote, if 5 or more vote to reduce, then the justices must discuss how much to reduce the ban by and reach a general consensus.
   4. The verdict, whatever it may be, must be sent to the Chief Justice so he or she can notify the accused as to the result of the case.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• This will help CC to be more fair in the forums.

-Sully

EDIT: Just cleaned things up a bit to make easier to read. Didn't make any changes other than fix the right margins.
EDIT 2: 5 to 4 user to mod ratio as opposed to the previous 3 to 4
EDIT 3: Inserted [list] tags to make things look pretty

Victor Sullivan wrote:How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• This will help CC to be more fair in the forums.

I understand what you're trying to do, and I respect that. But I just have to say this...if the owner of the site or the head moderator (either one) don't trust their own moderators "to be more fair in the fora" then they shouldn't put those moderators in those positions.

Essentially what I mean is...if the site were to agree to your suggestion, they would in fact be admitting that their own moderators cannot handle the positions they've been placed in.

With that in mind, I cannot see why the site would possibly want to take on this suggestion.

The current system is much cheaper and less energy-intensive than this. Therefore, your suggestion isn't welcome.

I'm going to expect that the positive changes of your proposal wouldn't be worth the slight retaining of a few current CC members. New members' incentives for joining are very little determined by the SIB's or the forum's way of handling appeals (or really the forum itself). Continued memberships aren't really influenced by this either---except in the minds of very very few. Too few to matter.

Thanks for the suggestion, VS!

Woodruff wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• This will help CC to be more fair in the forums.

I understand what you're trying to do, and I respect that. But I just have to say this...if the owner of the site or the head moderator (either one) don't trust their own moderators "to be more fair in the fora" then they shouldn't put those moderators in those positions.

Essentially what I mean is...if the site were to agree to your suggestion, they would in fact be admitting that their own moderators cannot handle the positions they've been placed in.

With that in mind, I cannot see why the site would possibly want to take on this suggestion.

Are you saying that the moderators are infallible? Everyone makes mistakes, you know, so they're bound to make unfair or uninformed decisions at one point or another, and I'm sure many already have.

BigBallinStalin wrote:The current system is much cheaper and less energy-intensive than this. Therefore, your suggestion isn't welcome.

I'm going to expect that the positive changes of your proposal wouldn't be worth the slight retaining of a few current CC members. New members' incentives for joining are very little determined by the SIB's or the forum's way of handling appeals (or really the forum itself). Continued memberships aren't really influenced by this either---except in the minds of very very few. Too few to matter.

Thanks for the suggestion, VS!

Too few to matter? So you're saying not everyone is important, then? It seems to me that the ones that are influenced by this that you say "don't matter" are the ones that have been treated unfairly, no? You can't possibly let unfairness be, can you? What if you were one of those few people? As for the money thing, I see your point, but you're not paying extra for this add-on, so I don't see how that argument holds water at all.

-Sully

I didn't read everything here in this thread.... but I can tell you this:

If you were abused, just open an e-ticket. Trust me, NOTHING will happen...

I promise

Oh, by the way, I first sent an e-ticket to king achilles and this was basically our conversation:

king achilles wrote:Hi Sully,

I can tell you right now, people are susceptible to "favor" friends or be influenced by what their friends would say or simply peer pressure by what the crowd wants.

If someone "popular" gets a ban, and someone who is "disliked" by a majority also gets a ban with the same offense, how do you think would this "Supreme Court" handle the situation? What if one or few of the supreme court members has a personal feud with the accused? What if one of them is a friend or a relative or a clan mate or belongs to a rival clan?

Regards,
king achilles

Victor Sullivan wrote:Thanks for responding so quickly. Here are the answers to your questions:

king achilles wrote:If someone "popular" gets a ban, and someone who is "disliked" by a majority also gets a ban with the same offense, how do you think would this "Supreme Court" handle the situation?

If you were to use the setup I proposed, 4 respected, trustworthy mods and 3 regular players from the forums, the mods would still have the majority. I would expect the mods to be as objective as possible, and if you chose the right 3 regular forum-posters, this shouldn't be a problem at all.

king achilles wrote:What if one or few of the supreme court members has a personal feud with the accused?

Ah, good question, but I have also accounted for this. If one of the Supreme Court "justices" has a personal feud with the person on trial, the other Supreme Court members can exclude him from the case, and you, king achilles, will be the fill-in (because there could potentially be a tie). Now, if you decide to organize it in such a way that you are one of the justices, you could simply use someone else (maybe a global mod) as the replacement for the case.

king achilles wrote:What if one of them is a friend or a relative or a clan mate or belongs to a rival clan?

If the accused is a relative or close friend of the accused, again, the other Supreme Court members can decide to exclude him or her from the case and be filled in with the replacement. If justices are biased toward or against their clan-mates/rivals, they probably shouldn't be a justice at all, considering that would include a lot of people, but at any rate, like I said, the Supreme Court can always decide to replace someone for a specific case as they see fit.

And as for your first comment:

king achilles wrote:I can tell you right now, people are susceptible to "favor" friends or be influenced by what their friends would say or simply peer pressure by what the crowd wants.

Yes, I see your point, BUT that's the case with everyone. If you use this argument to dismantle the idea of the Supreme Court, then you might as well dismember each group of mods, as they would be subject to bias as well. At any rate, I think I've organized things in such a way to reduce bias and peer-pressure and still allow the players to feel like the Supreme Court's verdicts are legit.

Thanks again and feel free to keep asking away

-Sully

Then I sent him the whole structure I included in my first post (I figured there'd be no point in repeating it).

king achilles wrote:Hi Sully,

I assume you already know that anyone who gets forum banned always makes an appeal or demands that their ban be lifted because they feel they didn't do anything wrong. With this "SC", they will automatically appeal their case.

Now, if this is in place, what a mod would do now is that before a mod would ever ban anyone from now on, they would just consult with the Supreme Court if the ban is worthy for that person or not. This will "downgrade" the mod as to what his function really is as he has to explain himself everytime, as if he is the one in trial.

So why not make this "SC" a moderating team instead so they would be in charge of disciplining anyone and save all the this work?

Regards,
king achilles

Victor Sullivan wrote:

king achilles wrote:I assume you already know that anyone who gets forum banned always makes an appeal or demands that their ban be lifted because they feel they didn't do anything wrong. With this "SC", they will automatically appeal their case.

Well, if they already try to appeal the case, I don't see what the problem is. Like I explained with my second reply, in Article IIB, the Chief Justice (pretty much you), decides which ones are worthy for the SC to discuss, because there is obviously no need to discuss a case that was obviously solved correctly the first time by another mod.

king achilles wrote:Now, if this is in place, what a mod would do now is that before a mod would ever ban anyone from now on, they would just consult with the Supreme Court if the ban is worthy for that person or not. This will "downgrade" the mod as to what his function really is as he has to explain himself everytime, as if he is the one in trial.

Not necessarily. In fact, being slow to make such a decision might not be best. With the SC in place, the mods' quick responses to banning people will be much more informed, as they can reference previous cases as time goes on. Thus, the SC won't have as many cases as the mods become more aware of the specifics of the Community Guidelines/Rules, which would be a great thing. The "average" mod wouldn't be downgraded by any means, the SC is not put in place to undermine the mods' authority, it's to look at cases more in-depth and to determine and interpret the specifics of already existing rules. The regular mods need to take quick action to remove violators from the forums, while the SC's job is to take things slow and make an informed decision first and foremost.

king achilles wrote:So why not make this "SC" a moderating team instead so they would be in charge of disciplining anyone and save all the this work?

I've already explained some of this above, but the idea of being able to appeal your case to a board of members trusted by both mods and regular posters makes things much more fair for everyone, no? Think about it: Conquer Club - Fair in the game, fair in the forums. I promise you this will resolve a lot of the angst against mods that is going around currently (especially in Qomedy Qlub - a usergroup I was invited to a long time ago by Army of GOD). All the huss and fuss with the Conquer Club Supreme Court is to make people feel that their case is being thoroughly looked into, rather than feeling like they were unjustly banned on a mod's whim. Heck, you could make the SC forum public if you wanted, allowing people to feel like they're apart of things more. At any rate, the SC is a necessity that will by no means diminish the power of the mods. I strongly advise the implementation of the Supreme Court in a hasty manner, as I have not a single doubt this will be enormously beneficial to CC's forums.

Like I said before, feel free to keep emailing me with questions and whatnot.

-Sully

king achilles wrote:Hi again,

Can you give me a scenario of how this SC works?

Guy gets forum banned. Guy complains. SC reviews and rules in favor of the forum ban.

- what if guy still complains and accuses the SC for being as "biased and stupid" as the the moderators?
- what if a number of community members feels the same way and accuses the SC as not fair at all?

Guy gets forum banned. Guy complains. SC reviews and rules in favor of the complainant.

- what happens now to the moderator? will he be picked on by the community because of the ruling and say he is unfit to be a mod? We do have kids here.
- what if there will also be a group of people who will not agree with the decision and accuse the SC of being biased and unfair as well?

When someone gets a forum ban, they are free to open an eTicket to appeal their case. The admins, then, review it if the ban was just or not.

You said:

Victor Sullivan wrote:...All the huss and fuss with the Conquer Club Supreme Court is to make people feel that their case is being thoroughly looked into, rather than feeling like they were unjustly banned on a mod's whim...

Usually, if the ruling comes out in favor of the ban, the person doesn't accept it and gets more fired up to tell the whole world he has been victimized. This will be the usual response when your SC rules out in favor of the punishment (even if you explain it thoroughly to that person).

You will be back to where you started that the moderators or the SC are still biased and unfair. Your SC will always be seen as unfair unless they lift any forum bans that are given. They just want their own punishments to be lifted while the ones who they flamed be punished.

Find someone who is usually flaming in the forum. Imagine that he got a forum vacation for it. Now, let's say SC rules that the ban was right. What do you think this person would do in return? Just think about it. Who are those people who usually spams, trolls, flames, baits, etc.

Regards,
king achilles

Victor Sullivan wrote:

king achilles wrote:Guy gets forum banned. Guy complains. SC reviews and rules in favor of the forum ban.

- what if guy still complains and accuses the SC for being as "biased and stupid" as the the moderators?
- what if a number of community members feels the same way and accuses the SC as not fair at all?

Two things: 1. The way the member structure is set up, there will be 3 not-currently-mods that are generally respected by the community and can be trusted to make fair decisions. Those 3 members are there so that the community will respect their decision, knowing these 3 people well and also knowing that they're not against them (I'm not saying mods are, they just perceive them that way sometimes). 2. If the community knows the process of the SC, they can know that their case is being thoroughly looked into. Right now, no one knows how a mod bans someone - does he consult other mods or does he just do it himself? (the latter, of course, being the accepted assumption).

king achilles wrote:Guy gets forum banned. Guy complains. SC reviews and rules in favor of the complainant.

- what happens now to the moderator? will he be picked on by the community because of the ruling and say he is unfit to be a mod? We do have kids here.
- what if there will also be a group of people who will not agree with the decision and accuse the SC of being biased and unfair as well?

It's the mods' job to build up his or her own respect, much like how my respect for you has grown since you have been taking my idea seriously. It's inevitable that each mod will screw up once in their career, and they need to suck it up - this is what they signed up for when they accepted the mod job. I don't see this as being much of an issue, even if people do make fun of a mod that messed up. There are always gonna be people that dislike the decision, no matter which way the SC goes - you can't please everyone. And besides, if the SC is capable (and I know it will be if the right people are chosen for the job), I'm positive their decisions would be largely accepted, no matter which way they rule.

king achilles wrote:Usually, if the ruling comes out in favor of the ban, the person doesn't accept it and gets more fired up to tell the whole world he has been victimized. This will be the usual response when your SC rules out in favor of the punishment (even if you explain it thoroughly to that person).

You will be back to where you started that the moderators or the SC are still biased and unfair. Your SC will always be seen as unfair unless they lift any forum bans that are given. They just want their own punishments to be lifted while the ones who they flamed be punished.

Find someone who is usually flaming in the forum. Imagine that he got a forum vacation for it. Now, let's say SC rules that the ban was right. What do you think this person would do in return? Just think about it. Who are those people who usually spams, trolls, flames, baits, etc." You're making a lot of unfair assumptions - you assume everyone is going to respond to the SC in the same way they do to the mods, when I'm certain this is not true. I think I've thoroughly answered these concerns above.

Cheers,
Sully

king achilles wrote:Hi Sully,

I am just giving you possible scenarios. Something for you to think about.

I think it's time for you to make your suggestion public if you want. Then we shall see what is the impact on the community for this.

Regards,
king achilles

-Sully

This will do nothing. 4-3 mods can uphold any stupidity that they do. It should be 5-4 user-mod. More likely a user would go with a mod than vice versa.

sorry Sully... for me, I don't trust most mods.... i believe they cover each others...

problem is that most people (specifically mods) who have been here at CC for +3 years think that they own the site and can abuse newer people

But you have to say this is the best solution to the problem in existence, no?

-Sully

Victor Sullivan wrote:But you have to say this is the best solution to the problem in existence, no?

-Sully

look at mah post silleh

well, you started this not me.... let me tell you something about rules... if a mod abused & banned you from chat or forum, all you can do is to report that abuse,.. and again, NOTHING will happen...

1st of all, we have a very dumb rule which encourages abuse... it's the DISCRETION part of rules... look at this part very carefully:

"Because of the dynamic and always-going nature of chat, all rules and guidelines are interpreted according to the situation solely at the Moderator's discretion."

i know you are talking about forum not chat, but they are the same, trust me.

anyway, in the aforesaid part of provisions, it's obvious that "DISCRETION" gives mods the right to customize any word and make up a big deal...

now I was abused because i said a certain word, so I was accused of "Bigotry".. problem is not that English = 2nd not 1st language for me.. I used the technical term which I read in academic books... my guilt was that I didn't know that the term is offensive in USA which i never visited

I suggested making the rules fixed not extendible.... at lease, when a mod wants to report/ban a violator, that mod shall take a screen shot to justify the decision he/she made... otherwise, a mod has no right to ban... is it hard? it's way easier than holding a court...

I reported the abusive mod, and guess what... that mode was promoted few weeks later!

rules here are exactly like "THE LAW OF EMERGENCIES IN EGYPT"..... any cop has the right to arrest anyone for suspecting anything under law of emergencies...

now do you think your court will ever see the light?? man... before you have a court, you have to have a law.... a car with no gas is useless...

Well said Pirlo!

Victor Sullivan wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• This will help CC to be more fair in the forums.

I understand what you're trying to do, and I respect that. But I just have to say this...if the owner of the site or the head moderator (either one) don't trust their own moderators "to be more fair in the fora" then they shouldn't put those moderators in those positions.

Essentially what I mean is...if the site were to agree to your suggestion, they would in fact be admitting that their own moderators cannot handle the positions they've been placed in.

With that in mind, I cannot see why the site would possibly want to take on this suggestion.

Are you saying that the moderators are infallible? Everyone makes mistakes, you know, so they're bound to make unfair or uninformed decisions at one point or another, and I'm sure many already have.

How could you possibly have gotten that from what I posted? In all seriousness, that is a trainwreck of an understanding of a post. Please try re-reading it.

I really don't see this going through. Here's my thoughts -

1. As king achilles said, even if their was a "fair" panel, if a ban was ever withheld, the banned user would still complain that the system was corrupted.
2. From my perspective, the users will 9/10 times say the ban was unjust. Why? Because if they agree with the mods, they will suddenly get a bad reputation from other users. What user really want's a bad rep in the forums?

TheForgivenOne wrote:I really don't see this going through. Here's my thoughts -

1. As king achilles said, even if their was a "fair" panel, if a ban was ever withheld, the banned user would still complain that the system was corrupted.

Probably but the community wouldn't be up in arms as much.

2. From my perspective, the users will 9/10 times say the ban was unjust. Why? Because if they agree with the mods, they will suddenly get a bad reputation from other users. What user really want's a bad rep in the forums?

Not at all.

Victor Sullivan wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:The current system is much cheaper and less energy-intensive than this. Therefore, your suggestion isn't welcome.

I'm going to expect that the positive changes of your proposal wouldn't be worth the slight retaining of a few current CC members. New members' incentives for joining are very little determined by the SIB's or the forum's way of handling appeals (or really the forum itself). Continued memberships aren't really influenced by this either---except in the minds of very very few. Too few to matter.

Thanks for the suggestion, VS!

Too few to matter? So you're saying not everyone is important, then? It seems to me that the ones that are influenced by this that you say "don't matter" are the ones that have been treated unfairly, no? You can't possibly let unfairness be, can you? What if you were one of those few people? As for the money thing, I see your point, but you're not paying extra for this add-on, so I don't see how that argument holds water at all.

-Sully

Now you're just making stuff up (regarding the underlined).

You do understand the "money thing," but you're overlooking the other costs in trying to implement this. You have to see it from the owner's and administration's perspective:

Is this suggestion worth the cost of implementing? SEeing that the benefits are so few, then no, it's not worth it.

Fircoal wrote:This will do nothing. 4-3 mods can uphold any stupidity that they do. It should be 5-4 user-mod. More likely a user would go with a mod than vice versa.

I put the 4-3 mods in because then king achilles or whoever can trust the decision more, though if the forum users are hand-picked, I suppose 5-4 users could be good.

Pirlo wrote:sorry Sully... for me, I don't trust most mods.... i believe they cover each others...

problem is that most people (specifically mods) who have been here at CC for +3 years think that they own the site and can abuse newer people

I think people have a rather exaggerated and unrealistic view of the mods' integrity, much like yourself. They make mistakes, but it doesn't mean that they're evil people trying to abuse their power to unjustly ban people. I'm saying mods definitely screw up, everyone does, so the SC is there to fix their mistakes.

Pirlo wrote:well, you started this not me.... let me tell you something about rules... if a mod abused & banned you from chat or forum, all you can do is to report that abuse,.. and again, NOTHING will happen...

1st of all, we have a very dumb rule which encourages abuse... it's the DISCRETION part of rules... look at this part very carefully:

"Because of the dynamic and always-going nature of chat, all rules and guidelines are interpreted according to the situation solely at the Moderator's discretion."

i know you are talking about forum not chat, but they are the same, trust me.

anyway, in the aforesaid part of provisions, it's obvious that "DISCRETION" gives mods the right to customize any word and make up a big deal...

now I was abused because i said a certain word, so I was accused of "Bigotry".. problem is not that English = 2nd not 1st language for me.. I used the technical term which I read in academic books... my guilt was that I didn't know that the term is offensive in USA which i never visited

I suggested making the rules fixed not extendible.... at lease, when a mod wants to report/ban a violator, that mod shall take a screen shot to justify the decision he/she made... otherwise, a mod has no right to ban... is it hard? it's way easier than holding a court...

I reported the abusive mod, and guess what... that mode was promoted few weeks later!

rules here are exactly like "THE LAW OF EMERGENCIES IN EGYPT"..... any cop has the right to arrest anyone for suspecting anything under law of emergencies...

now do you think your court will ever see the light?? man... before you have a court, you have to have a law.... a car with no gas is useless...

See, what you've brought up is exactly what the Supreme Court would be there for! They would be the ones to lay down the specifics and interpret the Forum/Chat Guidelines so that the "discretion" part will become almost non-existent, because the SC will set precedents with the cases they resolve. In your case, the SC would have probably ruled in your favor and so the mods would be more informed when considering banning someone in a similar situation, you see what I mean?

Woodruff wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• This will help CC to be more fair in the forums.

I understand what you're trying to do, and I respect that. But I just have to say this...if the owner of the site or the head moderator (either one) don't trust their own moderators "to be more fair in the fora" then they shouldn't put those moderators in those positions.

Essentially what I mean is...if the site were to agree to your suggestion, they would in fact be admitting that their own moderators cannot handle the positions they've been placed in.

With that in mind, I cannot see why the site would possibly want to take on this suggestion.

Are you saying that the moderators are infallible? Everyone makes mistakes, you know, so they're bound to make unfair or uninformed decisions at one point or another, and I'm sure many already have.

How could you possibly have gotten that from what I posted? In all seriousness, that is a trainwreck of an understanding of a post. Please try re-reading it.

Sigh... Woodruff, I think it is you that is not understanding what you yourself typed. To sum up what you said, you said that basically, if the Supreme Court were implemented, the administrators would be admitting that their mods make mistakes, which they do. The SC would be there to define specifics of forum/chat rules and correct unfair bannings by uninformed mods. I was saying that in essence, you said the mods are infallible, because they would be admitting to screwing up if they implemented this idea, which they can't, because they're mods and what they say goes. Quite fallacious thinking, I must say. Did I trainwreck again, Woodruff?

TheForgivenOne wrote:I really don't see this going through. Here's my thoughts -

1. As king achilles said, even if their was a "fair" panel, if a ban was ever withheld, the banned user would still complain that the system was corrupted.
2. From my perspective, the users will 9/10 times say the ban was unjust. Why? Because if they agree with the mods, they will suddenly get a bad reputation from other users. What user really want's a bad rep in the forums?

Lol, TFO, you're making a lot of unfair assumptions. You assume every user whose ban is withheld by the SC is going to bitch and moan and you assume that a user that agrees with the mods will be picked on (which, I might add, is a little ridiculous, no?). In essence, you assume the attitudes of users towards mods will essentially be the same, destructive angst it is now. I think you are quite wrong about this idea, my friend. Even if this idea has the slightest chance of being more fair or have a positive effect on people's attitudes toward the mods (which I think it has a lot more of a chance than "the slightest"), it's certainly worth it, no? Would you rather keep all the bad mojo against mods and not attempt at solving the problem because it's "too much work"?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:The current system is much cheaper and less energy-intensive than this. Therefore, your suggestion isn't welcome.

I'm going to expect that the positive changes of your proposal wouldn't be worth the slight retaining of a few current CC members. New members' incentives for joining are very little determined by the SIB's or the forum's way of handling appeals (or really the forum itself). Continued memberships aren't really influenced by this either---except in the minds of very very few. Too few to matter.

Thanks for the suggestion, VS!

Too few to matter? So you're saying not everyone is important, then? It seems to me that the ones that are influenced by this that you say "don't matter" are the ones that have been treated unfairly, no? You can't possibly let unfairness be, can you? What if you were one of those few people? As for the money thing, I see your point, but you're not paying extra for this add-on, so I don't see how that argument holds water at all.

-Sully

Now you're just making stuff up (regarding the underlined).

You do understand the "money thing," but you're overlooking the other costs in trying to implement this. You have to see it from the owner's and administration's perspective:

Is this suggestion worth the cost of implementing? SEeing that the benefits are so few, then no, it's not worth it.

The "benifits are too few"? You think that it's not worth it to make the forums more fair? It seems to me the portion of my quote that you've underlined isn't so far off, then, no? Why do you care how much it costs, anyways? You don't have to pay anything. If the admins decide they think the cost is too high, then they can say so.

-Sully

See, what you've brought up is exactly what the Supreme Court would be there for! They would be the ones to lay down the specifics and interpret the Forum/Chat Guidelines so that the "discretion" part will become almost non-existent, because the SC will set precedents with the cases they resolve. In your case, the SC would have probably ruled in your favor and so the mods would be more informed when considering banning someone in a similar situation, you see what I mean?

No I don't see your point, and I don't think I will..... because I already told you "Mods will cover each others"...

look at this joke:

"A chat mod MAY give a warning for violating any of those rules. When a warning is given, all the members in the room are required to heed the warning."

it doesn't even say SHOULD....

man, this is ridiculous... I believe that all we need is rules reformation.... for example, a mod should prove the violation...

then hold any court... I didn't disagree with the court idea.. I'm just saying that something more important should be made on which the court will be based

Victor Sullivan wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• This will help CC to be more fair in the forums.

I understand what you're trying to do, and I respect that. But I just have to say this...if the owner of the site or the head moderator (either one) don't trust their own moderators "to be more fair in the fora" then they shouldn't put those moderators in those positions.

Essentially what I mean is...if the site were to agree to your suggestion, they would in fact be admitting that their own moderators cannot handle the positions they've been placed in.

With that in mind, I cannot see why the site would possibly want to take on this suggestion.

Are you saying that the moderators are infallible? Everyone makes mistakes, you know, so they're bound to make unfair or uninformed decisions at one point or another, and I'm sure many already have.

How could you possibly have gotten that from what I posted? In all seriousness, that is a trainwreck of an understanding of a post. Please try re-reading it.

Sigh... Woodruff, I think it is you that is not understanding what you yourself typed. To sum up what you said, you said that basically, if the Supreme Court were implemented, the administrators would be admitting that their mods make mistakes, which they do. The SC would be there to define specifics of forum/chat rules and correct unfair bannings by uninformed mods. I was saying that in essence, you said the mods are infallible, because they would be admitting to screwing up if they implemented this idea, which they can't, because they're mods and what they say goes. Quite fallacious thinking, I must say. Did I trainwreck again, Woodruff?

Yes, without question you trainwrecked again. You may have even destroyed the tracks it was running on. It's weird, because you essentially re-stated exactly what I said and then, somehow, tried to say that it means something else entirely.

So let me point out the mistake. I did not IN ANY WAY say that the mods are infallable, nor do I see how you could possibly come to that conclusion. I also did not say that the moderators would be admitting to anything by implementing this idea, rather I referred specifically to those in charge of the moderators.

As to saying my thinking is fallacious, you have yet again completely misunderstood the point I was making. I'm not at all saying that I AGREE with that line of thinking, but what I AM saying is that it is only realistic to view the situation from the site-owner's perspective...which would be as I stated. Somehow, you've tried to take my point about the site-owner's view and twisted it as if it were my personal view. I'm not real sure why you've done that, but THAT is the only fallacious thinking going on here in our discussion.

Victor Sullivan wrote:

TheForgivenOne wrote:I really don't see this going through. Here's my thoughts -
1. As king achilles said, even if their was a "fair" panel, if a ban was ever withheld, the banned user would still complain that the system was corrupted.
2. From my perspective, the users will 9/10 times say the ban was unjust. Why? Because if they agree with the mods, they will suddenly get a bad reputation from other users. What user really want's a bad rep in the forums?

Lol, TFO, you're making a lot of unfair assumptions. You assume every user whose ban is withheld by the SC is going to bitch and moan and you assume that a user that agrees with the mods will be picked on (which, I might add, is a little ridiculous, no?).

What is it about your idea that leads you to believe this would change? Do you believe the typical user's myopic try-to-get-away-with-anything-I-can attitude will change only because a different entity is in charge of the decisions? Do you believe the typical user's desire to peer-pressure others into "fighting the power" will change only because a different entity is in charge of the decisions? I certainly don't, in either case.

Victor Sullivan wrote:Would you rather keep all the bad mojo against mods and not attempt at solving the problem because it's "too much work"?

There's too much work involved for very little (if any) real chance for change. It doesn't make sense to tilt at windmills when that energy could be turned toward much more-productive pursuits with actual real possibility of enhancing the site.

Victor Sullivan wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• This will help CC to be more fair in the forums.

I understand what you're trying to do, and I respect that. But I just have to say this...if the owner of the site or the head moderator (either one) don't trust their own moderators "to be more fair in the fora" then they shouldn't put those moderators in those positions.

Essentially what I mean is...if the site were to agree to your suggestion, they would in fact be admitting that their own moderators cannot handle the positions they've been placed in.

With that in mind, I cannot see why the site would possibly want to take on this suggestion.

Are you saying that the moderators are infallible? Everyone makes mistakes, you know, so they're bound to make unfair or uninformed decisions at one point or another, and I'm sure many already have.

BigBallinStalin wrote:The current system is much cheaper and less energy-intensive than this. Therefore, your suggestion isn't welcome.

I'm going to expect that the positive changes of your proposal wouldn't be worth the slight retaining of a few current CC members. New members' incentives for joining are very little determined by the SIB's or the forum's way of handling appeals (or really the forum itself). Continued memberships aren't really influenced by this either---except in the minds of very very few. Too few to matter.

Thanks for the suggestion, VS!

Too few to matter? So you're saying not everyone is important, then? It seems to me that the ones that are influenced by this that you say "don't matter" are the ones that have been treated unfairly, no? You can't possibly let unfairness be, can you? What if you were one of those few people? As for the money thing, I see your point, but you're not paying extra for this add-on, so I don't see how that argument holds water at all.

-Sully

yes everyone does make mistakes and i do like this idea.

well sir, in my case, it was not a mistake...

I believe that the mod who abused me has mental problems... or at least is in a shit mood most of time... simply, I was in the wrong place & time to be abused for some pressure release

good luck finding justice here at this site

Instead of a Supreme Court setup you could have a moderator be the judge and then have him conscript members for jury duty to decide a member's fate. Pretty much the same principal, but without a very specific preselected group. Possibly have a jury duty sign-up list for active members would be in order? To be honest though, without a second thought, the CC administration would never even bother with planning such things.

Pirlo wrote:well sir, in my case, it was not a mistake...

I believe that the mod who abused me has mental problems... or at least is in a shit mood most of time... simply, I was in the wrong place & time to be abused for some pressure release

good luck finding justice here at this site

Pirlo, I have to agree with you once again. I have seen / noticed a couple of mods that almost 100% of the time have a fucking stick up their ass and are in a shitty mood. I try to stay far enough away from them that I can't even smell them. The main reason I am so looking forward to the new viewtopic.php?f=4&t=132901 coming about, I hope, I hope! Anyhow, I have a very positive attitude and am happy to be here. I am happy that folks come up with suggestions to improve our time spent here and I would volunteer for jury duty if that form of this suggestion came to fruition.

May the dice roll in your favor! Well unless you are rolling against me that is.

lilrvrgrl wrote:

Pirlo wrote:well sir, in my case, it was not a mistake...

I believe that the mod who abused me has mental problems... or at least is in a shit mood most of time... simply, I was in the wrong place & time to be abused for some pressure release

good luck finding justice here at this site

Pirlo, I have to agree with you once again. I have seen / noticed a couple of mods that almost 100% of the time have a fucking stick up their ass and are in a shitty mood. I try to stay far enough away from them that I can't even smell them. The main reason I am so looking forward to the new viewtopic.php?f=4&t=132901 coming about, I hope, I hope! Anyhow, I have a very positive attitude and am happy to be here. I am happy that folks come up with suggestions to improve our time spent here and I would volunteer for jury duty if that form of this suggestion came to fruition.

May the dice roll in your favor! Well unless you are rolling against me that is.

I hear you lady, and I know who the couple of mods are....

if anybody wonders why live chat is no longer as fun as used to be, the question is so easy... X & Y started being regular and fucked up all the fun we used to have there...

do you think the admin is dumb enough to be unaware of all that crap going on??? I don't think so... but it's just everyone has his/her own perspective....

call it blind justice or whatever... again, they cover each others' corruption...

trust me sir sully... despite amending a dumb provision is way easier than holding courts and juries, it's not gonna happen...

This is a great idea, especially if you have 5-4 user/mod ratio. However, it will be very tedious -- but there are enough good chaps around, who'd be willing to put their time on this.