Supreme Court

[Victor Sullivan]

Sorry for the delay in responding, but here goes:

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

Rules reformation! Thats exactly what the Supreme Court will do through their cases: set precedents therefore defining the rules more explicitly, and leave less for the mod to try to interpret.

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.

This would be more difficult to do and would likely not be possible, I am afraid.

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.

Thanks for the support!... I think... But yes, there will be some times where that lodged stick may affect a mods judgement and the Supreme Court would be there to take care of things.

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.

Yeah, I am growing increasingly fond of the 5 to 4 user to mod ratio, and I think I will change things on my original post.

Its 2011! Time for a fresh new justice system! Please show your support and ask questions!

Cheers,
Sully

[DJPatrick]

Sull, et al...
This is a bu$ine$$ - it is NOT a democracy, nor a fifedom much less an Anarcho-syndicalist collective...CC hopes you have an enjoyable (paid) stay in the same way as BigMac staffers hope you have a nice day...it's NOT up for debate and discussion, the menu will change if and when there's more ca$h in it...till then, pay up, eat up and have that bloody nice day or screw off...
I've accepted it...I'm a cc-fast food junkie and just stomache the additives that are supplied with it...
I've copped a couopla of small bans here and there but hey, my subscription is to enable me to play on THEIR site, not to own part of it...
If 51% voted AGAINST democracy, who'd enforce their choice???

[jefjef]

Sull, et al...
This is a bu$ine$$ - it is NOT a democracy, nor a fifedom much less an Anarcho-syndicalist collective...CC hopes you have an enjoyable (paid) stay in the same way as BigMac staffers hope you have a nice day...it's NOT up for debate and discussion, the menu will change if and when there's more ca$h in it...till then, pay up, eat up and have that bloody nice day or screw off...
I've accepted it...I'm a cc-fast food junkie and just stomache the additives that are supplied with it...
I've copped a couopla of small bans here and there but hey, my subscription is to enable me to play on THEIR site, not to own part of it...
If 51% voted AGAINST democracy, who'd enforce their choice???

Wow. I actually agree with the basic post of DJP.

Now I must go get my 9mm and eat a cyanide capsule. Good bye cruel world.

[Victor Sullivan]

Sull, et al...
This is a bu$ine$$ - it is NOT a democracy, nor a fifedom much less an Anarcho-syndicalist collective...CC hopes you have an enjoyable (paid) stay in the same way as BigMac staffers hope you have a nice day...it's NOT up for debate and discussion, the menu will change if and when there's more ca$h in it...till then, pay up, eat up and have that bloody nice day or screw off...
I've accepted it...I'm a cc-fast food junkie and just stomache the additives that are supplied with it...
I've copped a couopla of small bans here and there but hey, my subscription is to enable me to play on THEIR site, not to own part of it...
If 51% voted AGAINST democracy, who'd enforce their choice???

Wow. I actually agree with the basic post of DJP.

Now I must go get my 9mm and eat a cyanide capsule. Good bye cruel world.

Oh, you guys! For one, you neednt be judging this from anothers perspective, lack can decide the worth of this idea when he is presented with the decision, I want your opinions specifically. Second, resounding support for this idea would be hard to ignore, if that were the case. Third, with fair forums, players would have more reason to stick around in the forums, and could easily increase sales by at least a small fraction. Customer service is important to all the businesses I can think of, so I would expect CC to be no different.

[jefjef]

I want your opinions specifically.

You did receive our opinion. This is a private for profit business. The owner has final say in who he wants as customers. It's his right. That is why some perma banned former members will never be openly allowed back on CC.

And do not think that he does not already receive input from or listen to those he placed in positions to represent his interests in his business.

[Woodruff]

Second, resounding support for this idea would be hard to ignore, if that were the case.

You're so cute! Take a look-see through the Suggestions forums, and you'll find that there are a whole shitload of "ideas with resounding support" that haven't been hard for them to ignore at all.

[blakebowling]

As much as I want to make a political joke after reading this, I actually agree with this. Provided that the voting was absolutely secretive (meaning nothing other than the vote count is released, and if you reveal your vote choice to anyone you are removed from your position on the "court.") I think this would give some absolution, and a feeling of control and responsibility to the community. However the likeliness of something like this being implemented is very slim, because it would be very difficult to preserve anonymity and keep all decisions based on actions taken, and not on personal opinions of the contester.

[JoshyBoy]

I would oppose this suggestion for many different reasons, but the biggest problem I would have is that you have an imbalanced suggestion for the "jury". 5 community vs 4 moderators? It should be an equal number of community members and moderators. In the case of a split decision, King A would decide.

[Gold Knight]

I want your opinions specifically.

You did receive our opinion. This is a private for profit business. The owner has final say in who he wants as customers. It's his right. That is why some perma banned former members will never be openly allowed back on CC.

And do not think that he does not already receive input from or listen to those he placed in positions to represent his interests in his business.

QFT. There has always been a "Supreme Court" in place, their name is in red and they keep the site running. As in almost every controversial C&A case, you'll notice that its KA stating the ruling, not one of the Hunters. The fact that there are so many regular users that have gotten moderator status is amazing to begin with in a privately owned business that doesn't pay those for their time and effort. The fact that their is a forum for issues brought up, such as these, is your jury of users making their case to the moderators.

[Pirlo]

Sull, et al...
This is a bu$ine$$ - it is NOT a democracy, nor a fifedom much less an Anarcho-syndicalist collective...CC hopes you have an enjoyable (paid) stay in the same way as BigMac staffers hope you have a nice day...it's NOT up for debate and discussion, the menu will change if and when there's more ca$h in it...till then, pay up, eat up and have that bloody nice day or screw off...
I've accepted it...I'm a cc-fast food junkie and just stomache the additives that are supplied with it...
I've copped a couopla of small bans here and there but hey, my subscription is to enable me to play on THEIR site, not to own part of it...
If 51% voted AGAINST democracy, who'd enforce their choice???

Wow. I actually agree with the basic post of DJP.

Now I must go get my 9mm and eat a cyanide capsule. Good bye cruel world.

I agree with this 100%

- Andrea the Charmer

[Victor Sullivan]

As much as I want to make a political joke after reading this, I actually agree with this. Provided that the voting was absolutely secretive (meaning nothing other than the vote count is released, and if you reveal your vote choice to anyone you are removed from your position on the "court.")

I absolutely agree, and thanks for your support!

I think this would give some absolution, and a feeling of control and responsibility to the community. However the likeliness of something like this being implemented is very slim, because it would be very difficult to preserve anonymity and keep all decisions based on actions taken, and not on personal opinions of the contester.

I realize this, and I've done my best efforts to try and write the Supreme Court "law" in such a way to reduce biases and such, much like this clause:

IIC. 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.

As far as anonymity is concerned, I don't believe the compilation of the SC needs to be anonymous. In fact, I might even support a colored name for each, so the community could see who is representing them. Of course, releasing information regarding the goings on of the SC would be completely illegal. Status updates on Court cases and revealing of individual members' votes would certainly be among those, and would warrant immediate ejection from the Court.

I would oppose this suggestion for many different reasons, but the biggest problem I would have is that you have an imbalanced suggestion for the "jury". 5 community vs 4 moderators? It should be an equal number of community members and moderators. In the case of a split decision, King A would decide.

I stand by my current setup for a couple of reasons:

1. The 5 community members would be chosen, so trust issues with the 5 would be near non-existent, but trust between the community and the Court's decision would be strong. Not only that, but I would expect king achilles' thoughts to be largely reflected by the 9 justices anyways, since he would likely be in charge of choosing all 9 justices.
2. The Chief Justice/king achilles is mainly there as a transport of information. He gives the SC cases (that he gets via e-ticket or even if there's a controversial case in C&A) that are debatable or questionable and then gives the verdict/enforces the verdict. He only participates if he thinks one of the justices is compromised due to connections with the accused (see Article IIC. above). Thus, the replacement system would have to re-worked and things could get more complicated. In addition, if he's sending the Court the cases, he's likely unsure anyways.
3. Ultimately, having ties and king achilles' having to intervene would be a pain and prolong the discussion and the reaching of the verdict.
4. king achilles, I'm sure, has a lot on his plate as it is. His job would be pretty easy with the SC, and might even make his current job easier, so he can just pass us the controversial cases and not need to investigate himself.

There has always been a "Supreme Court" in place, their name is in red and they keep the site running. As in almost every controversial C&A case, you'll notice that its KA stating the ruling, not one of the Hunters. The fact that there are so many regular users that have gotten moderator status is amazing to begin with in a privately owned business that doesn't pay those for their time and effort. The fact that their is a forum for issues brought up, such as these, is your jury of users making their case to the moderators.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, but king achilles would be giving the verdict for the Court, not unlike those controversial C&A cases you are referring to.

-Sully

[Queen_Herpes]

Would the Supreme Court cases be heard publicly in a forum, or behind-the-scenes?

[Victor Sullivan]

Would the Supreme Court cases be heard publicly in a forum, or behind-the-scenes?

**high-fives Queen_Herpes**

I suspect it would be behind the scenes (though ideally I think it'd be neat for the cases to take place in a locked forum - anyone can see the status of the case, but no one can post, avoiding potential flaming/baiting/etc.), but the main thing with the Supreme Court is that one, appealed cases get a more fair and in-depth review, and two, people would actually know what goes on behind the scenes. As it stands, no one really knows how one gets banned.

[Hannibał]

Great idea IMO. With a court made up of mods and members, would be much harder to abuse power. Would also avoid people boohooing about decisions made, since its clear it was a majority decision and not anyones personal vendetta

[TheForgivenOne]

Great idea IMO. With a court made up of mods and members, would be much harder to abuse power. Would also avoid people boohooing about decisions made, since its clear it was a majority decision and not anyones personal vendetta

People would still boohoo when they received a ban. They always will because they never believe they are in the wrong.

[Victor Sullivan]

Great idea IMO. With a court made up of mods and members, would be much harder to abuse power. Would also avoid people boohooing about decisions made, since its clear it was a majority decision and not anyones personal vendetta

People would still boohoo when they received a ban. They always will because they never believe they are in the wrong.

Meh, I think you'd be surprised. And this is to help with those few times they actually weren't in the wrong.

[owenshooter]

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.

i think it is a great idea, and i don't think lack would be saying that at all... for instance, when they began the great forum sweep and started handing out perma bans like chicklets, we lost more than a few prominent members that helped created the overall "feel" of the forum, and even one that made several maps. when andy was openly questioned about REVIEWING their bans due to the perma-ban being reduced to 6 months a few months after the final perma-ban had been handed down, he refused. why? he stated that to review all of their cases would take too long. hang on... there are fewer than a dozen perma-banned members!!!! how could that take up too much time?! is there really anyone that doesn't think t-o-m or dancing mustard should be given another chance? t-o-m is in live chat every day and doesn't cause any problems.

if team CC can see it's way to allow busted multis (yes, people that broke the FIRST RULE OF CC) to be mods, why can't these guys be allowed back in based on time served? most of them have been gone for over a year and still keep in touch with many of us and some are still active in games. these guys should be allowed back in and i think the OP's idea is a great step towards that. I for one was lucky that the escalating scale was in place when i received my perma-ban (reduced to 6 months)... and since then, the rule is still not written and no other member has received a ban for "over reporting posts in the forums". when team CC moves against you, they can create any rule or reason they wish to be rid of you, and you have no recourse for appeal unless you have a way to contact lack off of the site. this suggestion is a great idea, and should be seriously considered...-the black jesus

[Woodruff]

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.

i think it is a great idea, and i don't think lack would be saying that at all... for instance, when they began the great forum sweep and started handing out perma bans like chicklets, we lost more than a few prominent members that helped created the overall "feel" of the forum, and even one that made several maps. when andy was openly questioned about REVIEWING their bans due to the perma-ban being reduced to 6 months a few months after the final perma-ban had been handed down, he refused. why? he stated that to review all of their cases would take too long. hang on... there are fewer than a dozen perma-banned members!!!! how could that take up too much time?! is there really anyone that doesn't think t-o-m or dancing mustard should be given another chance? t-o-m is in live chat every day and doesn't cause any problems.

if team CC can see it's way to allow busted multis (yes, people that broke the FIRST RULE OF CC) to be mods, why can't these guys be allowed back in based on time served? most of them have been gone for over a year and still keep in touch with many of us and some are still active in games. these guys should be allowed back in and i think the OP's idea is a great step towards that. I for one was lucky that the escalating scale was in place when i received my perma-ban (reduced to 6 months)... and since then, the rule is still not written and no other member has received a ban for "over reporting posts in the forums". when team CC moves against you, they can create any rule or reason they wish to be rid of you, and you have no recourse for appeal unless you have a way to contact lack off of the site. this suggestion is a great idea, and should be seriously considered...-the black jesus

I don't disagree with your points. But your points don't disagree with what I posted either...in fact, what you posted seems to support my position, in my opinion.

[owenshooter]

I don't disagree with your points. But your points don't disagree with what I posted either...in fact, what you posted seems to support my position, in my opinion.

you sir are a genius... i just spoke with t-o-m in live chat to tell him to come look at this thread... he also thinks it is a wonderful and sound idea, but doubts CC will every bow to recognizing they are fallible.. we reminisced about the statement that reviewing less than 12 cases would take too long for CC to manage, and remembered the glory days of the forums... anyway, sound idea, it should be implemented and woodruff is a genius...-the black jesus

[40kguy]

I don't disagree with your points. But your points don't disagree with what I posted either...in fact, what you posted seems to support my position, in my opinion.

you sir are a genius... i just spoke with t-o-m in live chat to tell him to come look at this thread... he also thinks it is a wonderful and sound idea, but doubts CC will every bow to recognizing they are fallible.. we reminisced about the statement that reviewing less than 12 cases would take too long for CC to manage, and remembered the glory days of the forums... anyway, sound idea, it should be implemented and woodruff is a dumb(bad word)...-the black jesus

fixed.


I think if we do this it will have to be made up of the folowing people

KA
andy
and two "normal people".

[Woodruff]

you sir are a genius... i just spoke with t-o-m in live chat to tell him to come look at this thread... he also thinks it is a wonderful and sound idea, but doubts CC will every bow to recognizing they are fallible.. we reminisced about the statement that reviewing less than 12 cases would take too long for CC to manage, and remembered the glory days of the forums... anyway, sound idea, it should be implemented and woodruff is a dumb(bad word)...-the black jesus

fixed.

Altering someone's post for the sole reason of creating a flame against a third party.

[40kguy]

you sir are a genius... i just spoke with t-o-m in live chat to tell him to come look at this thread... he also thinks it is a wonderful and sound idea, but doubts CC will every bow to recognizing they are fallible.. we reminisced about the statement that reviewing less than 12 cases would take too long for CC to manage, and remembered the glory days of the forums... anyway, sound idea, it should be implemented and woodruff is a dumb(bad word)...-the black jesus

fixed.

Altering someone's post for the sole reason of creating a flame against a third party.

Like you never flame me?

[rdsrds2120]

This is not a thread about who flamed who. It's about VS's Suggestion.

Topic redireccttttttttt NOW!

----> VS, I agree that this suggestion has some good merit, however, I think that the biggest issue with implementation would be "The Switch". Getting from old system to new. Any ideas on how that potential transition would be helped?

-rd

[40kguy]

This is not a thread about who flamed who. It's about VS's Suggestion.

Topic redireccttttttttt NOW!

----> VS, I agree that this suggestion has some good merit, however, I think that the biggest issue with implementation would be "The Switch". Getting from old system to new. Any ideas on how that potential transition would be helped?

-rd

Slowly. You first start by reviewing all close cases. Then you start reviewing every case that happens. For example. Let's say I get banned for flaming. So we sounder if it is a flame because it was debatable. So if you decide I'm guilty I'm guilty. I can do anything about it.

[blakebowling]

This is not a thread about who flamed who. It's about VS's Suggestion.

Topic redireccttttttttt NOW!

----> VS, I agree that this suggestion has some good merit, however, I think that the biggest issue with implementation would be "The Switch". Getting from old system to new. Any ideas on how that potential transition would be helped?

-rd

Slowly. You first start by reviewing all close cases. Then you start reviewing every case that happens. For example. Let's say I get banned for flaming. So we sounder if it is a flame because it was debatable. So if you decide I'm guilty I'm guilty. I can do anything about it.

Right. But when do you make the change from the current way, and all of a sudden have a whole team that does this? Make an announcement and implement immediately? Implement and then announce. Announce and set an implementation date?