There's a Mod Lounge thread so the mods can weigh in privately on certain issues. One of them is, of course, Lounge Access.
One thing I brought up is (and I know this will be incredibly controversial) asking both sides to institute a Moderator, Global, or Admin as their rep.
Thoughts? They have ALL the access, they can take a look.
I really wish I could show you the appeals process, so you understand it's actually not needed. I'll walk you through it really quick though.
You get suspended/banned for whatever reason.
You can now go into an Appeals forum and make your case. Saying we were wrong, or asking for leniency.
After you appeal, it goes into an Appeals forum in the Mod Lounge. Your case is laid bare for the mods, with your appeal in one hand and your infraction history in the other, with the deciding event linked as well. All mods who feel they have enough knowledge about the situation will weigh in. And, usually, majority rules.
The only thing the Tribunal could really add is giving more evidence on the User's side, but the User himself can already do that, and they're much closer to the facts.
My issue is in the case where the inappropriately-actioned user, for whatever reason, fails to appeal.
I'd do exactly what I did here.
Az said Ria said (insert comments here) at (insert time here). I went and saw who actually DID talk then.
People brought up accusations about Ria. I went and investigated.
If you're claiming you were flamed, I can go find the flame. If you claim trolling, i can find it. if you claim that you're getting bad infractions, I can look at your infraction history.
Those are specific things, and I can find all of them.
Now, if you're saying someone's ATTITUDE is bad? That's something slightly different. We have to look at his entire history. But that's pretty much the ONLY time I think entire mod lounge access would be needed or beneficial.
You can find the specific things, sure. That's enough if the allegation is about a single incident which is serious enough to warrant dismissal by itself. But if it's a broader complaint β as it was with rianalnn β you need to judge the entire record, the good and the bad.
Without it, you cannot properly judge whether the mod just had some lapses of judgement or is truly a bad mod.
Couldn't disagree more. If the public feels something needs to be done, they need to know something IS being done.
Look at how many times people comment that something's going on 'behind closed doors', and how many complaints were made that the Summit wouldn't be open to all.
I'm just saying that if there's an issue, creating a CI thread shouldn't have to be a necessary step before going to the Tribunal.
There's a Mod Lounge thread so the mods can weigh in privately on certain issues. One of them is, of course, Lounge Access.
One thing I brought up is (and I know this will be incredibly controversial) asking both sides to institute a Moderator, Global, or Admin as their rep.
Thoughts? They have ALL the access, they can take a look.
My problems with this are it:
1. Doesn't solve the problem of access to the mod lounge for those not mods if they are in Tribunal about something they feel they might not be seeing the whole picture.
2. If there is a staff member from The Watchdog on a Tribunal along with an admin there is a problem of people thinking any decision except the decision they want could've been tainted due to a staff majority.
My issue is in the case where the inappropriately-actioned user, for whatever reason, fails to appeal.
There have been cases of these.
I have no problem with giving the Tribunal that power. I just see the Tribunal getting a lot of 'already being handled, thanks though'.
You can find the specific things, sure. That's enough if the allegation is about a single incident which is serious enough to warrant dismissal by itself. But if it's a broader complaint β as it was with rianalnn β you need to judge the entire record, the good and the bad.
Without it, you cannot properly judge whether the mod just had some lapses of judgement or is truly a bad mod.
Then perhaps 'the non-mod members of the Tribunal will be given mod-lounge access in the event that a particular case requires access to all lounge posts of a given staff member. They will be held to the same Code of Conduct that staff members abide by in regards to lounge confidentiality, with the same level of punishment for indiscretion'.
I'm just saying that if there's an issue, creating a CI thread shouldn't have to be a necessary step before going to the Tribunal.
If someone wants to create a CI thread? Fine.
Mm. Well, there's been a bunch of good options on this one submitted in this thread.
1. Doesn't solve the problem of access to the mod lounge for those not mods if they are in Tribunal about something they feel they might not be seeing the whole picture.
2. If there is a staff member from The Watchdog on a Tribunal along with an admin there is a problem of people thinking any decision except the decision they want could've been tainted due to a staff majority.
I'm seeing this problem a lot in this discussion, and I'm not seeing a solution yet. Keep talking!
1. I keep coming back to 'by request', annoyingly. It's still not helping the mods who don't like the idea.
2. Which is why I don't like the idea, personally. But if the mod in question is decided by the public for lack of corruption...?
A secret forum/subforum is created. Only the tribunal can see it (maybe mods too, idk). Whenever a case comes up, the mods make a copy of all the relevant threads from the lounge and bring these copies to this secret subforum for the tribunal's review.
If certain posts aren't relevant and contain TMI, they can be redacted.
Anyways, that way the tribunal would have all of the info they need, without getting personal information or other info that they don't need to /shouldn't have.
EDIT: Also, when the tribunal's duty is over, the copied threads are destroyed.
And that's exactly what this is for. Fixing issues of that nature.
I suppose but there are some issues that extend beyond this.
I intended to spell things out as straightforwards as I possibly could, which meant going a little more legalspeak on it. Terms of Use-type thing. I just didn't want loose language in there.
Straightforwardly? Oh.
I'm proficient in legal speak (proper) or legalese but detest its usage as it's essentially stupid jargon or somewhat used for dishonest purposes, such as to reduce transparency (e.g., "we're talking but not negotiating" is actually "we're thoroughly considering and, oh, about to close the deal"), even if euphemistically (e.g., "we're undergo restructuring" is "we're terminating the employment of so many people").
We'll figure it out!
I'm sure you/we'll work it out. I have faith!
If something's to be set up, I advise that due deliberation be taken and there should be no haste in doing things. Care needs to be taken with the design of this, particularly with regards to the number of individuals; and, then, with addressing a running problem that is the individuals themselves, assuming that this committee and memberships aren't of indefinite duration.
I definitely see your point. I only said the "large CI thread" part because what I don't want to see happening is some random 12 post user saying "hey tribunal this guy gave me an unjust infraction please go through the processes to review him."
I'd like to think that the people chosen as tribunal candidates would have enough sense to be able to determine whether or not a requested review has merit (probably erring a bit on the side of caution there).
Really, I'd hope that a disclaimer that the tribunal process isn't meant to be a substitute for appealing infractions, and that repeated abuse of the process (by "repeated" I don't mean "two or three times" - more like five or ten) is grounds for an infraction, would be enough to keep people from using it as a "let's harass Mod X" system.
I definitely see your point. I only said the "large CI thread" part because what I don't want to see happening is some random 12 post user saying "hey tribunal this guy gave me an unjust infraction please go through the processes to review him."
Indeed, I share that concern; the procedures for activating the tribunal need to prevent spurious requests.
The part of the tribunal that has access can give that information to the part that doesn't have access, no?
Only if they correctly judge what information is necessary.
A major reason for multiple-person panels is that they can get the correct result even when a single person is completely wrong about things.
There's a Mod Lounge thread so the mods can weigh in privately on certain issues. One of them is, of course, Lounge Access.
One thing I brought up is (and I know this will be incredibly controversial) asking both sides to institute a Moderator, Global, or Admin as their rep.
Thoughts? They have ALL the access, they can take a look.
That seems a bit convoluted. And you often lose something in communication when you're getting your information second-hand.
You already trust mod lounge access to a fairly large mod staff. I don't see how adding 10 well-respected members to the access list, under the same confidentially agreement, is a big problem. These are people who could surely become moderators if they had the time/inclination.
A secret forum/subforum is created. Only the tribunal can see it (maybe mods too, idk). Whenever a case comes up, the mods make a copy of all the relevant threads from the lounge and bring these copies to this secret subforum for the tribunal's review.
If certain posts aren't relevant and contain TMI, they can be redacted.
Anyways, that way the tribunal would have all of the info they need, without getting personal information or other info that they don't need to /shouldn't have.
EDIT: Also, when the tribunal's duty is over, the copied threads are destroyed.
As this got put at the bottom of the last page, I want to make sure it isn't missed.
I really wish I could show you the appeals process, so you understand it's actually not needed. I'll walk you through it really quick though.
You get suspended/banned for whatever reason.
You can now go into an Appeals forum and make your case. Saying we were wrong, or asking for leniency.
After you appeal, it goes into an Appeals forum in the Mod Lounge. Your case is laid bare for the mods, with your appeal in one hand and your infraction history in the other, with the deciding event linked as well. All mods who feel they have enough knowledge about the situation will weigh in. And, usually, majority rules.
The only thing the Tribunal could really add is giving more evidence on the User's side, but the User himself can already do that, and they're much closer to the facts.
We could make a call for a formerly banned user if they wouldn't mind sharing the process. We've got plenty that have appealed, and I imagine I'd like to know the process that got me back to the site. This would allow everyone a better understanding of how we process them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
She wants a ride on the pony, dude.
Mafia Stats
Kill shot: BB
Issue with my shooting? Please visit my helpdesk and help me learn to aim!
A secret forum/subforum is created. Only the tribunal can see it (maybe mods too, idk). Whenever a case comes up, the mods make a copy of all the relevant threads from the lounge and bring these copies to this secret subforum for the tribunal's review.
But if we don't want the mods to decide by themselves on whether the accused mod should be discharged, why should we want them to determine what facts the judges have access to? The latter often determines the former.
Would it help if the Tribunes were officially made CI mods?
But if we don't want the mods to decide by themselves on whether the accused mod should be discharged, why should we want them to determine what facts the judges have access to? The latter often determines the former.
Would it help if the Tribunes were officially made CI mods?
I actually had this thought too, to some extent. I'm not sure how good it is. Already kicked it in the Mod Lounge.
This might seem a little hard line, but I feel at this point it has to be said:
The members of the Tribunal will need access to the mod lounge for certain cases for all of the reasons stated in thread or else I feel this will not work because basically the staff shows it is unwilling to work with The Watchdog so that they can make correct calls. Above this allowing access when requested by the tribunal also shows that the moderators trust that the tribunal is working in the sites best interest and is not out to get them. If the mods can't trust the tribunal to act in faith of the CoC then the tribunal is not going to work the way it should, which is making sure that the correct decision is made.
I'm going to have more to say about this after I sleep (really guys, Friday night? Freelz? :p), but I would like to know where the tribunal would be held, when it convenes. Are you thinking chat, off-site, or *crosses fingers* controlled-access subforum?
Also....alternative selection procedure which might be better (or might not):
1. One group of 10 chosen instead of 2 groups of 5.
2. Mods nominate members (any mod can nominate). Members can recommend themselves or others to mods.
3. Members vote on nominees (voting for multiple people OK).
4. Top 10 vote getters get in.
This way, the mods can only nominate those they're comfortable giving mod access to. This should defuse that issue.
But if we don't want the mods to decide by themselves on whether the accused mod should be discharged, why should we want them to determine what facts the judges have access to? The latter often determines the former.
It would be the 1 or more members of the tribunal that already has lounge access that would determine what goes. Other staff could suggest too, I suppose.
Does this give the lounge-accessed tribunal members more power? Not really; I think if they were purposely not bringing certain posts to the attention of the rest of the tribunal they would be caught fairly easily by the dozens of mods watching things getting moved over. Plus that would take a pretty corrupt tribunal member (which would probably not happen to often).
Also....alternative selection procedure which might be better (or might not):
1. One group of 10 chosen instead of 2 groups of 5.
2. Mods nominate members (any mod can nominate). Members can recommend themselves or others to mods.
3. Members vote on nominees (voting for multiple people OK).
4. Top 10 vote getters get in.
This way, the mods can only nominate those they're comfortable giving mod access to. This should defuse that issue.
This means that some users that are not the favorites of mods wouldn't be nominated. I knew a few that aren't on the staff Christmas Card List that I would personally love seeing on the list.
It would be the 1 or more members of the tribunal that already has lounge access that would determine what goes. Other staff could suggest too, I suppose.
Does this give the lounge-accessed tribunal members more power? Not really; I think if they were purposely not bringing certain posts to the attention of the rest of the tribunal they would be caught fairly easily by the dozens of mods watching things getting moved over.
If they were hiding information, they shouldn't be in the Tribunal in the first place.
It would be the 1 or more members of the tribunal that already has lounge access that would determine what goes. Other staff could suggest too, I suppose.
Does this give the lounge-accessed tribunal members more power? Not really; I think if they were purposely not bringing certain posts to the attention of the rest of the tribunal they would be caught fairly easily by the dozens of mods watching things getting moved over.
Actually it does give the lounge access tribunal member more power because the information flows through them.
Actually it does give the lounge access tribunal member more power because the information flows through them.
So? Like I said, the only way that is in their advantage is if they edit quotes or delete information. That would take a very corrupt person to do, and hopefully a person like that would not end up on the tribunal. If they did, they would probably get caught fairly easily, like I said.
It would be the 1 or more members of the tribunal that already has lounge access that would determine what goes. Other staff could suggest too, I suppose.
Does this give the lounge-accessed tribunal members more power? Not really; I think if they were purposely not bringing certain posts to the attention of the rest of the tribunal they would be caught fairly easily by the dozens of mods watching things getting moved over.
There's lots of scenarios were this becomes a problem. The mod doesn't realize that Thread X is actually quite relevant, or honestly doesn't consider it relevant. Or is corrupt. You're losing a lot of the benefits of having multiple judges, which is that mistakes made by one can be noticed by others.
I'm not sure you could count on other mods noticing, since they aren't involved in the process.
This means that some users that are not the favorites of mods wouldn't be nominated. I knew a few that aren't on the staff Christmas Card List that I would personally love seeing on the list.
You could nominate them. Are there really people you think are good choices which not a single mod would nominate, even after getting a recommendation?
If they were hiding information, they shouldn't be in the Tribunal in the first place.
They wouldn't have to be purposefully hiding information. People make mistakes. The other members would be unable to correct these mistakes.
I value the opinions of those that disagree with me. So some people who I don't want in a position of power are some of those that I want the opinion of the most.
I also value the opinions of those that disagree with the staff. And those are the people that may not get the staff nomination.
I'm not sure you could count on other mods noticing, since they aren't involved in the process.
Then make them a part of the process. They could oversee the information being taken to the secret subforum. The only problem with that is if the staff as a whole is corrupt and biased in one way, and that just won't happen. Staff are chosen to be staff in because generally they are fair and intelligent*.
*This isn't exactly the grounds for choosing staff, etc., but for the most part the staff have these qualities, no? They seem like they would be the best candidates for this type of job.
I value the opinions of those that disagree with me. So some people who I don't want in a position of power are some of those that I want the opinion of the most.
I also value the opinions of those that disagree with the staff. And those are the people that may not get the staff nomination.
I think you overestimate the homogeneity of the staff. I'd guess that on nearly any issue with two reasonable sides, you have staff on both sides. So even those who disagree with most of the staff have staff they agree with.
Then make them a part of the process. They could oversee the information being taken to the secret subforum. The only problem with that is if the staff as a whole is corrupt and biased in one way, and that just won't happen. Staff are chosen to be staff in because generally they are fair and intelligent*.
Seems extremely convoluted. We started at 1 staff+2 outsiders and now we're at 2 outsiders+all staff. And what if the staff don't all agree?
There's a Mod Lounge thread so the mods can weigh in privately on certain issues. One of them is, of course, Lounge Access.
One thing I brought up is (and I know this will be incredibly controversial) asking both sides to institute a Moderator, Global, or Admin as their rep.
Thoughts? They have ALL the access, they can take a look.
My helpdesk should you need me.
My issue is in the case where the inappropriately-actioned user, for whatever reason, fails to appeal.
You can find the specific things, sure. That's enough if the allegation is about a single incident which is serious enough to warrant dismissal by itself. But if it's a broader complaint β as it was with rianalnn β you need to judge the entire record, the good and the bad.
Without it, you cannot properly judge whether the mod just had some lapses of judgement or is truly a bad mod.
I'm just saying that if there's an issue, creating a CI thread shouldn't have to be a necessary step before going to the Tribunal.
If someone wants to create a CI thread? Fine.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
My problems with this are it:
1. Doesn't solve the problem of access to the mod lounge for those not mods if they are in Tribunal about something they feel they might not be seeing the whole picture.
2. If there is a staff member from The Watchdog on a Tribunal along with an admin there is a problem of people thinking any decision except the decision they want could've been tainted due to a staff majority.
There have been cases of these.
I have no problem with giving the Tribunal that power. I just see the Tribunal getting a lot of 'already being handled, thanks though'.
Then perhaps 'the non-mod members of the Tribunal will be given mod-lounge access in the event that a particular case requires access to all lounge posts of a given staff member. They will be held to the same Code of Conduct that staff members abide by in regards to lounge confidentiality, with the same level of punishment for indiscretion'.
Mm. Well, there's been a bunch of good options on this one submitted in this thread.
I'm seeing this problem a lot in this discussion, and I'm not seeing a solution yet. Keep talking!
1. I keep coming back to 'by request', annoyingly. It's still not helping the mods who don't like the idea.
2. Which is why I don't like the idea, personally. But if the mod in question is decided by the public for lack of corruption...?
My helpdesk should you need me.
A secret forum/subforum is created. Only the tribunal can see it (maybe mods too, idk). Whenever a case comes up, the mods make a copy of all the relevant threads from the lounge and bring these copies to this secret subforum for the tribunal's review.
If certain posts aren't relevant and contain TMI, they can be redacted.
Anyways, that way the tribunal would have all of the info they need, without getting personal information or other info that they don't need to /shouldn't have.
EDIT: Also, when the tribunal's duty is over, the copied threads are destroyed.
Straightforwardly? Oh.
I'm proficient in legal speak (proper) or legalese but detest its usage as it's essentially stupid jargon or somewhat used for dishonest purposes, such as to reduce transparency (e.g., "we're talking but not negotiating" is actually "we're thoroughly considering and, oh, about to close the deal"), even if euphemistically (e.g., "we're undergo restructuring" is "we're terminating the employment of so many people").
I'm sure you/we'll work it out. I have faith!
If something's to be set up, I advise that due deliberation be taken and there should be no haste in doing things. Care needs to be taken with the design of this, particularly with regards to the number of individuals; and, then, with addressing a running problem that is the individuals themselves, assuming that this committee and memberships aren't of indefinite duration.
β jean-baptiste alphonse karr, les guΓͺpes (1849)
wiki subforum @ mtgs forums * mtgs wiki * site rules
Really, I'd hope that a disclaimer that the tribunal process isn't meant to be a substitute for appealing infractions, and that repeated abuse of the process (by "repeated" I don't mean "two or three times" - more like five or ten) is grounds for an infraction, would be enough to keep people from using it as a "let's harass Mod X" system.
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
Indeed, I share that concern; the procedures for activating the tribunal need to prevent spurious requests.
Only if they correctly judge what information is necessary.
A major reason for multiple-person panels is that they can get the correct result even when a single person is completely wrong about things.
That seems a bit convoluted. And you often lose something in communication when you're getting your information second-hand.
You already trust mod lounge access to a fairly large mod staff. I don't see how adding 10 well-respected members to the access list, under the same confidentially agreement, is a big problem. These are people who could surely become moderators if they had the time/inclination.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
As this got put at the bottom of the last page, I want to make sure it isn't missed.
We could make a call for a formerly banned user if they wouldn't mind sharing the process. We've got plenty that have appealed, and I imagine I'd like to know the process that got me back to the site. This would allow everyone a better understanding of how we process them.
Mafia Stats
Kill shot: BB
Issue with my shooting? Please visit my helpdesk and help me learn to aim!
But if we don't want the mods to decide by themselves on whether the accused mod should be discharged, why should we want them to determine what facts the judges have access to? The latter often determines the former.
Would it help if the Tribunes were officially made CI mods?
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
I actually had this thought too, to some extent. I'm not sure how good it is. Already kicked it in the Mod Lounge.
My helpdesk should you need me.
The members of the Tribunal will need access to the mod lounge for certain cases for all of the reasons stated in thread or else I feel this will not work because basically the staff shows it is unwilling to work with The Watchdog so that they can make correct calls. Above this allowing access when requested by the tribunal also shows that the moderators trust that the tribunal is working in the sites best interest and is not out to get them. If the mods can't trust the tribunal to act in faith of the CoC then the tribunal is not going to work the way it should, which is making sure that the correct decision is made.
My helpdesk should you need me.
1. One group of 10 chosen instead of 2 groups of 5.
2. Mods nominate members (any mod can nominate). Members can recommend themselves or others to mods.
3. Members vote on nominees (voting for multiple people OK).
4. Top 10 vote getters get in.
This way, the mods can only nominate those they're comfortable giving mod access to. This should defuse that issue.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
It would be the 1 or more members of the tribunal that already has lounge access that would determine what goes. Other staff could suggest too, I suppose.
Does this give the lounge-accessed tribunal members more power? Not really; I think if they were purposely not bringing certain posts to the attention of the rest of the tribunal they would be caught fairly easily by the dozens of mods watching things getting moved over. Plus that would take a pretty corrupt tribunal member (which would probably not happen to often).
This means that some users that are not the favorites of mods wouldn't be nominated. I knew a few that aren't on the staff Christmas Card List that I would personally love seeing on the list.
If they were hiding information, they shouldn't be in the Tribunal in the first place.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Actually it does give the lounge access tribunal member more power because the information flows through them.
Exactly.
So? Like I said, the only way that is in their advantage is if they edit quotes or delete information. That would take a very corrupt person to do, and hopefully a person like that would not end up on the tribunal. If they did, they would probably get caught fairly easily, like I said.
There's lots of scenarios were this becomes a problem. The mod doesn't realize that Thread X is actually quite relevant, or honestly doesn't consider it relevant. Or is corrupt. You're losing a lot of the benefits of having multiple judges, which is that mistakes made by one can be noticed by others.
I'm not sure you could count on other mods noticing, since they aren't involved in the process.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
You could nominate them. Are there really people you think are good choices which not a single mod would nominate, even after getting a recommendation?
They wouldn't have to be purposefully hiding information. People make mistakes. The other members would be unable to correct these mistakes.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
I also value the opinions of those that disagree with the staff. And those are the people that may not get the staff nomination.
My helpdesk should you need me.
See below
Then make them a part of the process. They could oversee the information being taken to the secret subforum. The only problem with that is if the staff as a whole is corrupt and biased in one way, and that just won't happen. Staff are chosen to be staff in because generally they are fair and intelligent*.
*This isn't exactly the grounds for choosing staff, etc., but for the most part the staff have these qualities, no? They seem like they would be the best candidates for this type of job.
I think you overestimate the homogeneity of the staff. I'd guess that on nearly any issue with two reasonable sides, you have staff on both sides. So even those who disagree with most of the staff have staff they agree with.
Seems extremely convoluted. We started at 1 staff+2 outsiders and now we're at 2 outsiders+all staff. And what if the staff don't all agree?
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)