Conquer Club

blakebowling wrote: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?

if i remember correctly, when CC took the members suggestion for an escalating punishment scale, they just implemented it without any formal post. this however, it seems as if you would have to make an announcement in order to have members volunteer/be nominated for this deal. correct?-the black jesus

p.s.-oddly enough, when they took that escalating punishment scale and used it for all punishments, it was kind of weird, because it had only been suggested for certain things not a CC wide usage. seems to have worked out fine...

Goodness, am I slow or what? For some reason this topic was marked "read". Anywho:

rdsrds2120 wrote: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

Well, I think you make it sound like the transition would be a difficult thing to do, when I think quite the opposite. Lackattack (or king achilles, I suppose) would post an announcement in the Announcements forum announcing the new system. Any cases prior to the Supreme Court implementation would be disregarded, so the team isn't overflowed with cases. I suspect the team would be introduced to their new positions prior to the official implementation to get well-acquainted with the rules and such. If I had anything to say about it, king achilles and I would set up the TeamCC forum before we chose members, to have things well-organized by the time they get their positions.

owenshooter wrote:

blakebowling wrote: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?

if i remember correctly, when CC took the members suggestion for an escalating punishment scale, they just implemented it without any formal post. this however, it seems as if you would have to make an announcement in order to have members volunteer/be nominated for this deal. correct?-the black jesus

Meh, for this type of deal, I'm not sure as if it would be appropriate to have open applications/nominations. I suspect people would be chosen by myself (since I know the rules - I created the suggestion) and king achilles (since he's the head of this department) and probably AndyDufresne, too. Well, that's how I would do it if I had anything to say about it. These positions would have to be carefully chosen, so to have an open callout for members doesn't seem entirely suiting.

-Sully

Excuse and apologies for the necrobump, but I thought it was appropriate to bring this up again, given the recent controversial cases in C&A. Also, I edited the first post to make it prettier and easier to read.

-Sully

does it only pertain to permanent bans? or also warnings and temporary bans?

In either case, I would say no. Currently the bans are already issue'd by players who also are mods. To fully understand why some players have been caught and or convicted it might be needed to have detailed information about the C&A hunter mod tools. This will NOT happen. period.

SirSebstar wrote:does it only pertain to permanent bans? or also warnings and temporary bans?

In either case, I would say no. Currently the bans are already issue'd by players who also are mods. To fully understand why some players have been caught and or convicted it might be needed to have detailed information about the C&A hunter mod tools. This will NOT happen. period.

Meh, I think you're too quick to jump to conclusions. I debated king achilles on the subject awhile back, and he didn't seem particularly opposed to the idea: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=133318#p2922490

I'd say it would apply to any controversial case - warning, ban, whatever. The C&A team can present any information that they feel is necessary for the Court to know. I will say, my original intent was more for cases like forum bans that didn't require knowledge of Hunter tools.

-Sully

Maybe Woodruff or someone else brought this up, but I'm wondering how, specifically, we get from Supreme Court to fair?

I understand the idea of the Supreme Court. What I'm asking about is how the inclusion of non-moderators make this fair? Are non-moderators different in some way than moderators? For example, let's say there is an alleged forum violation. MeDeFe, clapper, rds, me, etc. discuss it; we come to a conclusion; we issue the ruling (to borrow court parlance). What's the difference between that and a Supreme Court? If the answer is the inclusion of non-moderators, go back to my previous question: Why does the inclusion of non-moderators make this fair (or more fair than our current system)?

thegreekdog wrote:Maybe Woodruff or someone else brought this up, but I'm wondering how, specifically, we get from Supreme Court to fair?

I understand the idea of the Supreme Court. What I'm asking about is how the inclusion of non-moderators make this fair? Are non-moderators different in some way than moderators? For example, let's say there is an alleged forum violation. MeDeFe, clapper, rds, me, etc. discuss it; we come to a conclusion; we issue the ruling (to borrow court parlance). What's the difference between that and a Supreme Court? If the answer is the inclusion of non-moderators, go back to my previous question: Why does the inclusion of non-moderators make this fair (or more fair than our current system)?

The original intent of the community members was to select ones well-known and respected by other community members. That way, when the final ruling is made, it is more likely that the defendant will accept it, knowing that the majority knows where he's coming from, in a sense, or at least he respects them enough. In addition, it's always good to have multiple perspectives and fresh pairs of eyes on a case.

-Sully