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.
You may be right.
I just believe that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'. i don't want the staff to have full control of nominations.
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?
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?
The staff as a whole wouldn't be a part of the tribunal. They wouldn't even pick what goes to the secret tribunal subforum. All they would do is oversee that the information being taken by lounge-accessed members of the tribunal is wholesome and accurate.
If the staff disagreed they'd debate, and if it came to it they'd vote. I doubt that would really come up, however. Info is info.
The staff as a whole wouldn't be a part of the tribunal. They wouldn't even pick what goes to the secret tribunal subforum. All they would do is oversee that the information being taken by lounge-accessed members of the tribunal is wholesome and accurate.
If the staff disagreed they'd debate, and if it came to it they'd vote. I doubt that would really come up, however.
1. This seems unnecessarily convoluted as been said before.
2. This makes the process much more cumbersome and time consuming then it needs to be.
1. This seems unnecessarily convoluted as been said before.
2. This makes the process much more cumbersome and time consuming then it needs to be.
3. It doesn't address the trust issue.
1. It doesn't seem convoluted to me. I can fit it into two short easy-to-understand sentences:
Move relevant non-private stuff to secret tribunal subforum. Saff oversees that the information being taken is wholesome and accurate.
2. It might take a little time, yes. I'd really appreciate that time to be taken if it means my privacy (and others') is at stake, however.
EDIT: Also, keep in mind that the situations in which we even need the tribunal should be very rare, and probably pretty serious. That's worth taking time for.
1. It doesn't seem convoluted to me. I can fit it into two short easy-to-understand sentences:
2. It might take a little time, yes. I'd really appreciate that time to be taken if it means my privacy (and others') is at stake, however.
EDIT: Also, keep in mind that the situations in which we even need the tribunal should be very rare, and probably pretty serious. That's worth taking time for.
3. What trust issue?
1. Convoluted as meaning that it makes the process more cumbersome and complicated then it need or should be.
2. If it's serious enough that taking the extra time isn't a problem, then the mods should trust the tribunal will follow the CoC, as letting them read everything they deem relevant will allow them to make the best decision possible.
3. See below, but basically it boils down to if you can't trust Tribunal members with reading the mod lounge when they need to then the Tribunal won't be able to make the best decisions and shows that the mods do not in fact trust the tribunal or Watchdogs, which undermines them.
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.
1. Convoluted as meaning that it makes the process more cumbersome and complicated then it need or should be.
2. If it's serious enough that taking the extra time isn't a problem, then the mods should trust the tribunal will follow the CoC, as letting them read everything they deem relevant will allow them to make the best decision possible.
3. See below, but basically it boils down to if you can't trust Tribunal members with reading the mod lounge when they need to then the Tribunal won't be able to make the best decisions and shows that the mods do not in fact trust the tribunal or Watchdogs, which undermines them.
I think any form of restriction will always look like an issue of trust.
I know these things are possible as I set them up myself when admin.
The Grrr thread will likely never be relevant to public issues (trust me it's a load of unrelated stuff) and should be treated the same way the gutter is. If there is ever a problem there it will likely be brought up by a staff member , so simple solution is to make that one thread a seperate usergroup for staff only.
That way you can grant tribunal member temporary access to see all relevant policy making information as and if the need arises.
Having been on the staff I understand their desire for privacy and it isn't because they are conducting elaborate schemes or anything nefarious.
However this incident has brought about a severe distrusting attitude from a lot of people and I think trust is a 2 way street, the staff have to trust they are not going to get lynched for everything they do and the community need to know a proper saftey valve is in place to prevent drama build up in future.
Ok, I suppose I see your points. Maybe full modlounge access is a better idea.
But ONLY when there is actually a situation at hand in which they are needed. They don't need access 100% of the time when it is only relevant 0.1% of the time.
EDIT: Also, there is at least 1 thread in the lounge that the tribunal should never have access to, one that discloses personal information about the mods. It would never be relevant to the tribunal, so they should at least never see that one.
So I read the first and last page of the thread and am too lazy to read more. However, I picked 'other', and I wanted to explain why. [Otherwise I wouldn't be posting.]
And I feel like this is almost necessary as the userbase expands, but it just leads to a ... different feel for the site. I don't want users second-guessing their posts on a website that theoretically is for their own enjoyment [except if they actually mean to do something negative].
This and the admin>tech demotion are the results of the discussion, and I feel like they solve the problems on their basest level, but they miss solving a more intractable problem, one that might not be solvable[?] - the one of posting comfort and community, as balanced with the necessity for rules and accountability within mod ranks. And the existence of the gutter as an unmoderated place should theoretically solve that, but I don't know if it does, and neither does the Speakeasy. Curated places where only portions of the userbase congregate to talk, separate from the main site. They kind of ... don't accomplish the goal, because of their separation.
Maybe this is just me being nostalgic and wishing that any of the people I knew on the site [save a few exceptions, of course] still were here. I don't have the perspective to judge. But losing that sense of community as the main forums are modded more seriously is a dangerous kind of thing and, I feel, is the reason that we have the problems we do. [or should I use 'You' at this point ...]
I feel like this has happened because of a lack of communication and a large amount of obfuscating bureaucracy, and adding more bureaucracy [and less obfuscation] strikes me as an odd way to solve it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
my mouth is full of winsome lies -
and eyes are full of death besides
but luckily the soul is wise -
it sees beyond my blindness and
forced failure makes a better guise,
so as i come again alive,
it feels like life's a decent plan
Not being vocal around here (because I usually don't have much to say) and mostly lurking in the CI threads, something tells me that this will be abused to an extreme. I can see a 'give an inch, take a mile' analogy being played over and over again and I don't know why.
As everyone is well aware of, power leads to greed and so on and so forth (save for a few people that are currently on staff).
I guess my main question is what the point would be to have a Tribunal when they would have to wait for the mods/admins to reverse/repeal a decision that was made? What if the admins believe that they are in the right and disagree with the "Tribunal"?
These questions may have been asked, but it seems like it would make it more drawn out than what it already is for an appeal, or for any 'corruption' hunting and could lead to more fuel for the fire.
I also shamelessly read the first and last pages, because I don't have enough time to keep up with everything that happened overnight, unfortunately.
I agree that 5 is a better number for the tribunal than 3. There's been a lot of backlash against only having 3 Admins, and I feel that the same thing would happen with the Tribunal eventually. 5 is just a much better number all around.
I also feel like we need to clarify the reason for the creation of this group. Is it being created to stop drama from building up, or to answer it once it has already built up? This is a critical question that hasn't been answered to my satisfaction yet (if I missed it in the middle pages, you have my apologies).
More thoughts in a bit/later. I have a tournament today, so I can't just sit here and read/write politics all day today =(
I personally believe in the value of having the Mod Lounge being exclusively for mods, so here's a wild idea: create a new private forum with group permissions that both staff and tribunal can access. Then any mod is free to share Mod Lounge information in there without it being a breach of the CoC, yet the non-staff don't really have access to the Lounge. This keeps the non-staff from getting access to non-relevant information that shouldn't be disclosed just yet.
I'm all for transparency, but I do believe that being able to work in private is fundamental for the staff to do a good job.
This new forum should only be open when it's called for.
Nai I want to comment on this, specially as someone who was able to see the appeals process from the inside.
I still didn't feel comfortable appealing my suspension from these channels because (whether this was paranoia or not, that's beyond the point) it occurred at a point where I was being a very vocal opposer to the administration, and the suspension itself was very questionable.
To be frank, I didn't felt comfortable appealing over closed doors to an administration I didn't trust. This is one big issue for me because when you are not suspended, you can always appeal in helpdesks, and there is a public accountability and traceability. This is no longer the case when you are suspended/banned, which is why I decided to wait for my suspension to end to have the decision repealed.
Now, if there could have been a third party I could have appealed instead, even if it was behind closed doors....
I also agree with what fnord said. You shouldn't wait for users to ask you to revoke unfair decisions. If someone (anyone) puts forward evidence that a decision is wrong, you should repeal it anyway.
As for mod lounge access, I can empathize with not having 10 extra guys accessing admin or global lounge that have 5 users at much. Even for the tribunal, its too much power. Having the tribunal having read only access to the mod lounge, and full rights to the mod chat (where they can interact with staff if needed be?*). thats adding 10 extra persons to a 20-30 persons group, what's the problem? Should be enough to have an NDA signed.
*on the fence in full mod chat access, tribunal and staff shouldn't mingle too much for obvious reasons.
I'd like to echo what N_S has said here. Non-staff should be involved in suspension appeals, but that's a different topic.
If the concern is too many people viewing the admin chats, why not just have 8 or 6 people for the watch dog? I understand that ten may be considered many, so why can't we decrease the number? If any of the users leak mod chat, they should be subject to instant banning and replacement on the watch dog group.
The only reason I see mods scared about this is because they want to keep their own issues covered up and they're afraid that if this watchdog so to speak comes in, what happened to Rian will happen to them.
From my understanding the mods have a serious area, and an area where they can just blow off steam. Here's my suggestion
6-10 People
- Read Only in all moderator forums
- Create a new subforum where the tribunal can interact with the admins and globals about issues that arise with mods
- A subforum akin to the Gutter Staff Pegging Chamber in which users can ask questions of or voice concerns with the current watchdog group.
aside: has ER uploaded the logs from the summit yet, if so, can I get a link?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Arcadic View Post
scumbag
Want Higher Level Card Evaluation? Visit Diestoremoval.com
I'm for the Tribunal. I just hope that the user nominated voting doesn't turn into the Forum Awards. The denizens of MTGS love to bicker and fight and turn straight forward matters into ****fests.
I like the hidden subforum idea. The Tribunal sees only what it needs to know and has limited interaction with staff. That was it will be harder for bias and favoritism to form in either direction.
How long do the public selected tribunal candidates stay? I believe that members of the tribunal should be replaced on a periodic basis, say annually, to limit the possibility of corruption or poor candidates (after all, we do not know the capabilities of people, until we see them in action) in the tribunal itself.
A 5-men tribunal team seems more reliable than a 3-men tribunal and is also a more efficient usage of the 10 tribunal candidates, since hopefully, there would be only 1 or 2 problematic staffs to deal with at any point of time. If the plan is to stick to a 3-men tribunal, I seriously don't see the need to have 10 tribunal candidates.
It's still not colorless, and has no color. That's a paradox. So either you're a Zen master or an idiot, I'll assume the Zen master for sake of argument. This card will have no paradoxes because it has a clear paradox. Deep stuff man.
To be honest, I'm still not sold on this Tribunal being necessary. I understand the ideal behind it, but I just seems to me to be another step for this site declining into a laughable bureaucratic cauldron of nerd *****ery. Is corruption so rampant amongst the staff that this website needs an Internal Affairs Department? This just seems like pandering to me. Pandering that opens the floor for so many more headaches, no less.
I just don't see how the system is so broke that this step is required.
As a pragmatist that I am, I find the idea of a MTGS tribunal wholly impractical and needlessly burdensome.
The staff has become too entrenched in appeasing the general population. (What does staff "corruption" even really mean? Personal gain? What personal gain? This is a card game website! The charges waged against the staff are completely ridiculous.) If the staff is to let the proposition proceed, they will not only be validating baseless and rhetorical lynch proceedings against themselves; but, they will lose power to effectively make unpopular, but beneficial, decisions for the site. The proposition will be a deterrent to effective leadership.
This goes beyond Rianalnn and the issues at hand. For future administration and current moderation, I am warning you that this may one day be you. Rianalnn is guilty of nothing but being the victim of petty unpopularity among the staff and the general population. Should he step down based on unpopularity alone? Perhaps; but, short term popularity is volatile and not a good basis for decision making. Consider this: Rianalnn was very popular just a year ago.
What I believe would be most beneficial for the site is a streamlining of the leadership. The current cluttered leadership structure has become counterproductive and too vulnerable to infighting and bickering. I've been on MTGS for a while and I must say that none of the former admin regimes (Lesurgo, {MikeyG}, Azrael, Rianalnn) have been inherently much better or much worse. It's all merely a matter of perception so it doesn't make much difference who is in charge as long as there is a stable leadership.
Ultimately, regardless of what happens next, the stakes are low. Even if MTGS were to belly up for XYZ reasons, this is only a card game fan site. MTGS is comprised of young, idealistic individuals and if it is pleases the staff and the general population to turn this site into a little political experiment/game, there's nothing wrong with that. I'm merely stating that from a "running a forum" standpoint, none of this makes a lick of sense.
I also feel like we need to clarify the reason for the creation of this group. Is it being created to stop drama from building up, or to answer it once it has already built up? This is a critical question that hasn't been answered to my satisfaction yet (if I missed it in the middle pages, you have my apologies).
I view the watchdog/tribunal group as almost a last resort. If there is an issue so large, so seeped in drama and subjectivism, that it's believed the mods/admins and and the community at large can't reach a conclusion, then the tribunal is called. These 3 (or 5) people sit down, discuss the situation, look at the evidence, and try to reach a conclusion that a CI thread couldn't. But everyday disputes would still be handled by the site staff. If the tribunal were brought in for every issue, then they might as well be mods.
Also, I remember seeing it asked but don't know if many answers were given: I don't think current staff should be in the watchdog group, but I'm not opposed to ex-staff.
Though that makes me thing of another question: if one group chooses a representative that the other strongly disagrees with, could anything be done about it? If the mods chose Belgareth, for example, and the community at large objects to it (not that they would/should), do we want them to be able to veto the decision?
I personally believe in the value of having the Mod Lounge being exclusively for mods, so here's a wild idea: create a new private forum with group permissions that both staff and tribunal can access. Then any mod is free to share Mod Lounge information in there without it being a breach of the CoC, yet the non-staff don't really have access to the Lounge. This keeps the non-staff from getting access to non-relevant information that shouldn't be disclosed just yet.
This seems like the best solution. There's no reason any member of the tribunal should have full access to the Mod lounge, as long as all relevant information from there is brought out for the tribunal to read.
I'd like to echo what N_S has said here. Non-staff should be involved in suspension appeals, but that's a different topic.
I think this is something that could be discussed here, as we're trying to discover what functions this tribunal would serve. I understand N_S's desire to have suspension repeals looked at by a third party; it can seem pointless to ask the very people who issued the suspension to basically admit they were wrong, something very few people like to do. I know the staff has overturned suspensions and bans in the past, but not very often. If we found a way to prevent abuse of it (someone who got suspended for a perfectly valid reason just sees it as two opportunities to be told what they want to hear), I would support the tribunal being involved in suspension/ban repeals in certain situations.
The only reason I see mods scared about this is because they want to keep their own issues covered up and they're afraid that if this watchdog so to speak comes in, what happened to Rian will happen to them.
I don't think that's quite accurate. Things are said in the mod lounge under the assumption that only mods will ever see it. It's an expectation of privacy, which some use to perhaps be more brutally honest than they would in other places. If non-mods were suddenly able to see the mod forums, I don't think the mods would discuss things as openly, and that would defeat some of the purpose of the mod lounge.
I'm for the Tribunal. I just hope that the user nominated voting doesn't turn into the Forum Awards. The denizens of MTGS love to bicker and fight and turn straight forward matters into ****fests.
Sadly, I can easily see this happening ala the Forum Awards. Especially with the rampant usage of gimmick accounts recently, it can be easy for one to rig the voting if they chose to do so. And before anyone says "But the mods can just track down the gimmick to who made it!" I'm afraid the internet makes it easy to cloak yourself if you really want to.
Embarrassment may not be the only way. How about public retribution?
If I were to vote "Yes" on the ban of a public figure, I may not want the entire public to see I did so. I wouldn't want to be painted badly by those who were his friends.
Or you could just have the integrity to stand by your actions regardless of possible flashback.
Look Tordeck, I'm fine with the tribunal being provided with the information they need should a situation ever come up. Including all relevant posts from the lounge.
What I don't want is them having access to the whole lounge, for the reasons I, RMS, TCM, and Nai have stated.
Is there a problem with that at all? I don't see why the tribunal should be able to see the irrelevant stuff. Some of it is very private. It is, after all, irrelevant.
With it being "provided" there is no guarantee of all the necessary posts whether intentionally or just by mistake because sometimes discussion happens across several threads. Also if you are only just getting the posts that directly involve the situation at hand you can lose a lot of context with that is going on around them.
Only the Tribunal can decide whats relevant for each case fairly. Leaving it to the staff just breeds more distrust.
As does that fact that you and others have openly admitted to having posted questionable content that you want hidden.
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.
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.
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.
From my understanding of the wording the only Staff member on any tribunal would be the Admin of the Day. Both other tribunal members are normal users that have been picked as part of the pool of 10. Having any members of Staff in that pool would only cause more allegations of corruption. And defeat the purpose of the Watchdog group as it would once again just be whats going on now in that the Staff moderate the Staff.
Staff are chosen to be staff in because generally they are fair and intelligent*.
Actually of late its been more 'hey you can smash the report button and do so often. Here is a Mod job offer" or "Hey buddy, you and I think alike. Wanna be a mod" or "Hey you were a mod once like 5 years ago, we have a slot opening up. Want it".
I cant honestly remember when that last time the application process was used. More and more mods are just being appointed by those already in power. Which has lead to some of the current issues the userbase has with the current administration.
All that said. I am willing to concede to the tribunal access to the Mod lounge only being temporary while an ongoing investigation is happening and that of course they would be held to the same standard of unless it is specifically relevant to the case at hand whatever they see remains in the ML.
*Whew* I think that covers most of the possible squirrelly eventualities that could crop up. More thorough than is probably strictly necessary, I'd imagine, but better more thorough than less.
TL DR Summary:
1. We informally reach a consensus (80%) on userbase nominated members. Failing that, we vote.
2. Senior staff pick their choices.
3. 5 members selected at random decide what to do, with 4 alternates in case of conflicts of interest. 3 userbase members, 2 staff.
4. Mod lounge access is provided by copying material by default, but a gimmick account can be used to view it, with admin permission, or material can be moved out of the lounge into the tribunal forum for review.
In reply to those who feel this step is unnecessary, I believe this mechanism is essential to ensuring a fair and even-handed method of responding to userbase complaints effectively, and providing a fair and efficient method of removing high-level staff members from their positions in an emergency. Twice in the past six months, we've encountered situations where criticism of high-level staff resulted in a shake-up of the administrative team after major conflicts within CI. Finding a better way to resolve these disagreements than wrangling over it in CI is simply common sense.
----
Suggested Slate of Candidates
JeffBCrandall (Only if activity sufficient)
SilverSihhe (Only if activity sufficient)
Stardust (as staff member)
Azrael (per Rian's suggestion)
Arimnaes
Belgareth
Nai (as staff member)
Sene (as staff member)
Viper (as staff member)
Viricide (as staff member)
Jobie
Kraj
Galspanic (as staff member)
Ecophagy
[Additional persons, nominated by the public]
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal
A request for tribunal review may be triggered by a request, either public or private, with ten or more persons supporting tribunal review. The requestor should provide specific allegations, and all available evidence, as to why that moderator should be reformed or removed.
Because the senior staff already exercise broad oversight of regular moderators, the tribunal should not accept review of the actions of ordinary moderators and global moderators except in extreme cases, or upon a request by the site administration. The tribunal will not have jurisdiction to review the ban/appeals subforum, absent an endorsement by site administration. The tribunal will not have jurisdiction to directly review or overturn warnings, infractions, or policies set by the staff. However, the tribunal should certainly take into account a moderator's enforcement history of warnings and infractions as part of their inquiry into a moderator's performance.
The site administration may also consult the tribunal as an advisory board, and is encouraged (but not required) to consider that as an option in the event of a potentially controversial decision.
Number of Members
The tribunal should be comprised of nine members at all times. Five will be chosen by the userbase, and four will be selected by the site administration.
Representatives chosen by the site administration or the public may not be removed at staff discretion, and instead hold their positions until removed by userbase request, or by resignation.
In the event of a request for review, three members will be chosen at random from amongst the user representatives, and two members will be chosen at random from among the administration representatives. However, tribunal members may recuse themselves from hearing the case. Recusal is appropriate whenever other members of the tribunal are considered better suited to hear the case, or when a personal conflict is at stake. In the event that personal conflicts disqualify a quorom of the representatives, the remaining representatives will determine the appropriate procedure, such as proceeding with whichever members remain.
Selection of Members
Selection of the inaugural tribunal staff members will be managed by the global and administrative staff. Following these selections, changes to the roster of the tribunal staff members must follow the procedure detailed below.
Selection of the inaugural tribunal userbase members should take place through informal consensus amongst non-staff participating in CI, if possible. If broad agreement (80%) on the slate of candidates is possible through this method, no formal vote will be required. Otherwise, a poll will be opened in CI.
Once the inaugural tribunal has been selected, the procedure for replacing userbase tribunal members shall be appointment by the remaining userbase tribunal members. However, members of the userbase may call for a vote in lieu of appointment, and if a total of ten non-staff members support a vote, a public nomination and public voting thread will be created in CI. The nomination period should last one week, and the voting period should last two weeks.
Removal of Tribunal Members
Neither userbase tribunal members nor staff members sitting on the tribunal may be forced to resign by the site administration, even in the event of a termination of a staff tribunal member from the staff, or a suspension from the website.
The mechanism for removal of a tribunal member is a request by the userbase, seconded by ten non-staff members. A voting thread will be opened in CI, with 2/3 majority required for removal. Site staff are permitted to participate in the voting.
Removal from the tribunal must follow this procedure even in the unlikely event that a tribunal member is banned or suspended from the website. However, nothing in this section should be read as restricting the staff's discretion in banning or suspending tribunal members. In the incredibly unlikely event one or more suspensions/bannings prevent a tribunal member from participating in the review process, that process shall be conducted off site.
Voting Fraud
In the event that the proceedings are subjected to accusations of gimmick-based voting fraud, the existing members of the tribunal may vote to establish procedures for reviewing the voting record, such as disallowing posters beneath a certain postcount from participating.
Location and Lounge Access
The tribunal may convene in either a private or public location, at its discretion. In the event the tribunal convenes in a private location, a report of the proceedings shall be provided to the public at the time that the judgment is finalized.
The tribunal will be bound by a confidentiality agreement regarding mod lounge material, to be established by the tribunal members in consultation with the staff. Changes to the staff confidentiality agreements will not affect the tribunals' purview, unless ratified by a majority of the tribunal. The tribunals' scope of confidentiality takes precedence over the staff confidentiality policy, in the case of staff members sitting on the tribunal and performing their duties in that capacity.
The standard operating procedure for tribunal access to mod lounge and mod chat material will be to select an administrator or global moderator of its choice, and request material for review. The staff may not deny full and complete access to requested information without the permission of either the site owner, or the tribunal. Nor may the staff delete, hide, or obscure information, without the permission of either the site owner or the tribunal.
In the event more comprehensive access is required, the tribunal can request an account designed to allow tribunal access to the pertinent areas of the mod lounge and/or mod chat areas. The administration will manage the password and permissions for this account, and change the password at the conclusion of the proceedings. The administration has discretion to refuse tribunal access to any area of the site through this account.
Alternatively, the administration can move threads from the mod lounge into the private tribunal subforum for review.
Process
A simple majority of the participating tribunal members must reach a consensus on the appropriate remedial action, if any, in order to require staff action in compliance with the tribunal's judgment.
If an action for the removal of a tribunal member is brought concurrently with a request for review, the removal action must be resolved prior to reaching the merits on the request for review. However, repeated removal actions against the same member of the tribunal will not be grounds for delaying review.
That sounds reasonable enough to me. I do think the appeals process is more effective than it's been given credit for, but having the tribunal be able to view it and comment isn't a bad idea. I'll edit.
EDIT: Oh, I misread what you were arguing for here. If the idea is reviewing every infraction/suspension and second-guessing THAT...yikes. That seems outside the province of what the group should be doing.
If there's an ongoing systemic problem, they can talk about nuking it if it's a big enough deal. But nitpicking infractions is just going to be more administrative burden than it's worth.
I believe we have already seen the problems in a small group of users deciding on a matter in the Ria issue. Most of the community seemed to support Ria but the small "summit" was able to subvert that and bring him down.
For my own sense of integrity, I feel I need to voice my opinion here.
The past few days have seen talk that, IMHO has amounted to nothing significant occurring other that to speed up an already occurring process. Ria had yet to return from his holiday and answer to anything raised against him previously, all this hoohah did was force him to take time off from his holiday to deal with it immediately.
From this 'dealing with it', a suggestion was made for this 'creation of a tribunal' thing. I am summarily against the idea. As has already been said already, this sort of thing has been raised many times in the past.
It was a bad idea every other time it was suggested and it's still a bad idea. I personally feel that the very existence of this thread is a mistake.
Quite frankly, I feel the tribunal would be useless. Only serving as dead weight and the source of nothing more than incessant pettiness and posturing.
At no time in my memory would the use of any such body have provided a superior means to resolving any staff error than what what was actually used. This includes the most recent drama over ria.
I also feel that allowing users the ability to interpret the rules would undermine the entire point of having staff to enforce them.
This is especially the case where grey areas exist. Moderators already talk such actions into the ground, considering having a group of users second guess it is beyond insane.
You may notice that I used the word 'feel' a lot, I just want to make sure everyone knows this is just me speaking.
Now, I know I'm not the most articulate writer, so I'm going to restate that I find this proposal abhorrent and that I will personally do everything in my power to work against it.
I encourage anybody who feels the same to do the same.
Actually of late its been more 'hey you can smash the report button and do so often. Here is a Mod job offer" or "Hey buddy, you and I think alike. Wanna be a mod" or "Hey you were a mod once like 5 years ago, we have a slot opening up. Want it".
I cant honestly remember when that last time the application process was used. More and more mods are just being appointed by those already in power. Which has lead to some of the current issues the userbase has with the current administration.
As someone who isn't even remotely involved with the process, I don't think you have any ability to make any assertion about the reasons people are or are not hired.
As far as I've seen, staff are chosen based on their abilities and community involvement. Any other similarities are coincidental.
Or is this you raising issue with the abilities of the current staff to do their job?
And the last round of applications was December last year, I'm surprised you forgot.
Mods should be in charge of infractions/suspensions. There is a reasonable appeals process should you think an infraction occurred in error. In my experience this appeals process is always conducted in good faith by the staff.
To be honest, I'm still not sold on this Tribunal being necessary. I understand the ideal behind it, but I just seems to me to be another step for this site declining into a laughable bureaucratic cauldron of nerd *****ery. Is corruption so rampant amongst the staff that this website needs an Internal Affairs Department? This just seems like pandering to me. Pandering that opens the floor for so many more headaches, no less.
I just don't see how the system is so broke that this step is required.
Very well said.
Vox populi has won out, as it usually should. Rian has stepped down from administration and moved into a position that probably suits him and the userbase better.
Now, however, comes the demagoguery and populist appeal that invariably follows any mass movement. Tribunal? Watchdogs? Are we kidding ourselves here? This is a Magic forum, not post-Gaddafi Libya. We definitely don't need this level of bureaucracy on the site and I don't think that we as average users are or should be entitled to micromanage the staff on any level whatsoever.
Are we visiting this site to enjoy a community of MTG players, mafia players, artists, Gutterites, and all the other weird and wonderful folk who frequent it, or are we here to play Model U.N. and cry about not being adequately represented on, to borrow a phrase, a "children's card game" forum?
Put your faith in the admins and let's get on with our lives. I'd like to be able to log onto this site without the entitlement brigade assailing me with protests over every little thing they perceive the staff as having done wrong, which now needs redress via a CI thread, a 10-pt-font sig linking to that thread, or God forbid, a "Tribunal."
I think the tribunal will be as effective as its membership - and ought to have very little to actually do. This is a "break glass in case of emergency" measure we're talking about here, not a ruling institution second-guessing and micromanaging every decision.
To the extent there's an argument that it has too much power to interfere/advise/second-guess on staff turf, its jurisdiction can be reduced. But I think the only day-to-day type function that's been suggested at all, is taking a peek at the appeals sub and being able to give feedback, and I don't think that function is essential.
You may be right.
I just believe that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'. i don't want the staff to have full control of nominations.
I agree with you on this.
My helpdesk should you need me.
The staff as a whole wouldn't be a part of the tribunal. They wouldn't even pick what goes to the secret tribunal subforum. All they would do is oversee that the information being taken by lounge-accessed members of the tribunal is wholesome and accurate.
If the staff disagreed they'd debate, and if it came to it they'd vote. I doubt that would really come up, however. Info is info.
1. This seems unnecessarily convoluted as been said before.
2. This makes the process much more cumbersome and time consuming then it needs to be.
3. It doesn't address the trust issue.
1. It doesn't seem convoluted to me. I can fit it into two short easy-to-understand sentences:
2. It might take a little time, yes. I'd really appreciate that time to be taken if it means my privacy (and others') is at stake, however.
EDIT: Also, keep in mind that the situations in which we even need the tribunal should be very rare, and probably pretty serious. That's worth taking time for.
3. What trust issue?
1. Convoluted as meaning that it makes the process more cumbersome and complicated then it need or should be.
2. If it's serious enough that taking the extra time isn't a problem, then the mods should trust the tribunal will follow the CoC, as letting them read everything they deem relevant will allow them to make the best decision possible.
3. See below, but basically it boils down to if you can't trust Tribunal members with reading the mod lounge when they need to then the Tribunal won't be able to make the best decisions and shows that the mods do not in fact trust the tribunal or Watchdogs, which undermines them.
Ok, I suppose I see your points. Maybe full modlounge access is a better idea.
But ONLY when there is actually a situation at hand in which they are needed. They don't need access 100% of the time when it is only relevant 0.1% of the time.
EDIT: Also, there is at least 1 thread in the lounge that the tribunal should never have access to, one that discloses personal information about the mods. It would never be relevant to the tribunal, so they should at least never see that one.
Of course, mikeyG explained it succinctly before:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=8719146&postcount=588
And I feel like this is almost necessary as the userbase expands, but it just leads to a ... different feel for the site. I don't want users second-guessing their posts on a website that theoretically is for their own enjoyment [except if they actually mean to do something negative].
This and the admin>tech demotion are the results of the discussion, and I feel like they solve the problems on their basest level, but they miss solving a more intractable problem, one that might not be solvable[?] - the one of posting comfort and community, as balanced with the necessity for rules and accountability within mod ranks. And the existence of the gutter as an unmoderated place should theoretically solve that, but I don't know if it does, and neither does the Speakeasy. Curated places where only portions of the userbase congregate to talk, separate from the main site. They kind of ... don't accomplish the goal, because of their separation.
Maybe this is just me being nostalgic and wishing that any of the people I knew on the site [save a few exceptions, of course] still were here. I don't have the perspective to judge. But losing that sense of community as the main forums are modded more seriously is a dangerous kind of thing and, I feel, is the reason that we have the problems we do. [or should I use 'You' at this point ...]
I feel like this has happened because of a lack of communication and a large amount of obfuscating bureaucracy, and adding more bureaucracy [and less obfuscation] strikes me as an odd way to solve it.
and eyes are full of death besides
but luckily the soul is wise -
it sees beyond my blindness and
forced failure makes a better guise,
so as i come again alive,
it feels like life's a decent plan
As everyone is well aware of, power leads to greed and so on and so forth (save for a few people that are currently on staff).
I guess my main question is what the point would be to have a Tribunal when they would have to wait for the mods/admins to reverse/repeal a decision that was made? What if the admins believe that they are in the right and disagree with the "Tribunal"?
These questions may have been asked, but it seems like it would make it more drawn out than what it already is for an appeal, or for any 'corruption' hunting and could lead to more fuel for the fire.
I agree that 5 is a better number for the tribunal than 3. There's been a lot of backlash against only having 3 Admins, and I feel that the same thing would happen with the Tribunal eventually. 5 is just a much better number all around.
I also feel like we need to clarify the reason for the creation of this group. Is it being created to stop drama from building up, or to answer it once it has already built up? This is a critical question that hasn't been answered to my satisfaction yet (if I missed it in the middle pages, you have my apologies).
More thoughts in a bit/later. I have a tournament today, so I can't just sit here and read/write politics all day today =(
I'm all for transparency, but I do believe that being able to work in private is fundamental for the staff to do a good job.
This new forum should only be open when it's called for.
Q0.02
My YouTube Channel
I'd like to echo what N_S has said here. Non-staff should be involved in suspension appeals, but that's a different topic.
If the concern is too many people viewing the admin chats, why not just have 8 or 6 people for the watch dog? I understand that ten may be considered many, so why can't we decrease the number? If any of the users leak mod chat, they should be subject to instant banning and replacement on the watch dog group.
The only reason I see mods scared about this is because they want to keep their own issues covered up and they're afraid that if this watchdog so to speak comes in, what happened to Rian will happen to them.
From my understanding the mods have a serious area, and an area where they can just blow off steam. Here's my suggestion
6-10 People
- Read Only in all moderator forums
- Create a new subforum where the tribunal can interact with the admins and globals about issues that arise with mods
- A subforum akin to the Gutter Staff Pegging Chamber in which users can ask questions of or voice concerns with the current watchdog group.
aside: has ER uploaded the logs from the summit yet, if so, can I get a link?
scumbag
Want Higher Level Card Evaluation? Visit Diestoremoval.com
I like the hidden subforum idea. The Tribunal sees only what it needs to know and has limited interaction with staff. That was it will be harder for bias and favoritism to form in either direction.
A 5-men tribunal team seems more reliable than a 3-men tribunal and is also a more efficient usage of the 10 tribunal candidates, since hopefully, there would be only 1 or 2 problematic staffs to deal with at any point of time. If the plan is to stick to a 3-men tribunal, I seriously don't see the need to have 10 tribunal candidates.
The only colour with a 99/99
Signature by Spongy Pengwin
UBR: Sedris
I just don't see how the system is so broke that this step is required.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
The staff has become too entrenched in appeasing the general population. (What does staff "corruption" even really mean? Personal gain? What personal gain? This is a card game website! The charges waged against the staff are completely ridiculous.) If the staff is to let the proposition proceed, they will not only be validating baseless and rhetorical lynch proceedings against themselves; but, they will lose power to effectively make unpopular, but beneficial, decisions for the site. The proposition will be a deterrent to effective leadership.
This goes beyond Rianalnn and the issues at hand. For future administration and current moderation, I am warning you that this may one day be you. Rianalnn is guilty of nothing but being the victim of petty unpopularity among the staff and the general population. Should he step down based on unpopularity alone? Perhaps; but, short term popularity is volatile and not a good basis for decision making. Consider this: Rianalnn was very popular just a year ago.
What I believe would be most beneficial for the site is a streamlining of the leadership. The current cluttered leadership structure has become counterproductive and too vulnerable to infighting and bickering. I've been on MTGS for a while and I must say that none of the former admin regimes (Lesurgo, {MikeyG}, Azrael, Rianalnn) have been inherently much better or much worse. It's all merely a matter of perception so it doesn't make much difference who is in charge as long as there is a stable leadership.
Ultimately, regardless of what happens next, the stakes are low. Even if MTGS were to belly up for XYZ reasons, this is only a card game fan site. MTGS is comprised of young, idealistic individuals and if it is pleases the staff and the general population to turn this site into a little political experiment/game, there's nothing wrong with that. I'm merely stating that from a "running a forum" standpoint, none of this makes a lick of sense.
I view the watchdog/tribunal group as almost a last resort. If there is an issue so large, so seeped in drama and subjectivism, that it's believed the mods/admins and and the community at large can't reach a conclusion, then the tribunal is called. These 3 (or 5) people sit down, discuss the situation, look at the evidence, and try to reach a conclusion that a CI thread couldn't. But everyday disputes would still be handled by the site staff. If the tribunal were brought in for every issue, then they might as well be mods.
Also, I remember seeing it asked but don't know if many answers were given: I don't think current staff should be in the watchdog group, but I'm not opposed to ex-staff.
Though that makes me thing of another question: if one group chooses a representative that the other strongly disagrees with, could anything be done about it? If the mods chose Belgareth, for example, and the community at large objects to it (not that they would/should), do we want them to be able to veto the decision?
This seems like the best solution. There's no reason any member of the tribunal should have full access to the Mod lounge, as long as all relevant information from there is brought out for the tribunal to read.
I think this is something that could be discussed here, as we're trying to discover what functions this tribunal would serve. I understand N_S's desire to have suspension repeals looked at by a third party; it can seem pointless to ask the very people who issued the suspension to basically admit they were wrong, something very few people like to do. I know the staff has overturned suspensions and bans in the past, but not very often. If we found a way to prevent abuse of it (someone who got suspended for a perfectly valid reason just sees it as two opportunities to be told what they want to hear), I would support the tribunal being involved in suspension/ban repeals in certain situations.
I don't think that's quite accurate. Things are said in the mod lounge under the assumption that only mods will ever see it. It's an expectation of privacy, which some use to perhaps be more brutally honest than they would in other places. If non-mods were suddenly able to see the mod forums, I don't think the mods would discuss things as openly, and that would defeat some of the purpose of the mod lounge.
Sadly, I can easily see this happening ala the Forum Awards. Especially with the rampant usage of gimmick accounts recently, it can be easy for one to rig the voting if they chose to do so. And before anyone says "But the mods can just track down the gimmick to who made it!" I'm afraid the internet makes it easy to cloak yourself if you really want to.
Or you could just have the integrity to stand by your actions regardless of possible flashback.
With it being "provided" there is no guarantee of all the necessary posts whether intentionally or just by mistake because sometimes discussion happens across several threads. Also if you are only just getting the posts that directly involve the situation at hand you can lose a lot of context with that is going on around them.
Only the Tribunal can decide whats relevant for each case fairly. Leaving it to the staff just breeds more distrust.
As does that fact that you and others have openly admitted to having posted questionable content that you want hidden.
This.
And This.
From my understanding of the wording the only Staff member on any tribunal would be the Admin of the Day. Both other tribunal members are normal users that have been picked as part of the pool of 10. Having any members of Staff in that pool would only cause more allegations of corruption. And defeat the purpose of the Watchdog group as it would once again just be whats going on now in that the Staff moderate the Staff.
Actually of late its been more 'hey you can smash the report button and do so often. Here is a Mod job offer" or "Hey buddy, you and I think alike. Wanna be a mod" or "Hey you were a mod once like 5 years ago, we have a slot opening up. Want it".
I cant honestly remember when that last time the application process was used. More and more mods are just being appointed by those already in power. Which has lead to some of the current issues the userbase has with the current administration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All that said. I am willing to concede to the tribunal access to the Mod lounge only being temporary while an ongoing investigation is happening and that of course they would be held to the same standard of unless it is specifically relevant to the case at hand whatever they see remains in the ML.
The Family
---
*Whew* I think that covers most of the possible squirrelly eventualities that could crop up. More thorough than is probably strictly necessary, I'd imagine, but better more thorough than less.
TL DR Summary:
1. We informally reach a consensus (80%) on userbase nominated members. Failing that, we vote.
2. Senior staff pick their choices.
3. 5 members selected at random decide what to do, with 4 alternates in case of conflicts of interest. 3 userbase members, 2 staff.
4. Mod lounge access is provided by copying material by default, but a gimmick account can be used to view it, with admin permission, or material can be moved out of the lounge into the tribunal forum for review.
In reply to those who feel this step is unnecessary, I believe this mechanism is essential to ensuring a fair and even-handed method of responding to userbase complaints effectively, and providing a fair and efficient method of removing high-level staff members from their positions in an emergency. Twice in the past six months, we've encountered situations where criticism of high-level staff resulted in a shake-up of the administrative team after major conflicts within CI. Finding a better way to resolve these disagreements than wrangling over it in CI is simply common sense.
----
Suggested Slate of Candidates
JeffBCrandall (Only if activity sufficient)
SilverSihhe (Only if activity sufficient)
Stardust (as staff member)
Azrael (per Rian's suggestion)
Arimnaes
Belgareth
Nai (as staff member)
Sene (as staff member)
Viper (as staff member)
Viricide (as staff member)
Jobie
Kraj
Galspanic (as staff member)
Ecophagy
[Additional persons, nominated by the public]
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal
A request for tribunal review may be triggered by a request, either public or private, with ten or more persons supporting tribunal review. The requestor should provide specific allegations, and all available evidence, as to why that moderator should be reformed or removed.
Because the senior staff already exercise broad oversight of regular moderators, the tribunal should not accept review of the actions of ordinary moderators and global moderators except in extreme cases, or upon a request by the site administration. The tribunal will not have jurisdiction to review the ban/appeals subforum, absent an endorsement by site administration. The tribunal will not have jurisdiction to directly review or overturn warnings, infractions, or policies set by the staff. However, the tribunal should certainly take into account a moderator's enforcement history of warnings and infractions as part of their inquiry into a moderator's performance.
The site administration may also consult the tribunal as an advisory board, and is encouraged (but not required) to consider that as an option in the event of a potentially controversial decision.
Number of Members
The tribunal should be comprised of nine members at all times. Five will be chosen by the userbase, and four will be selected by the site administration.
Representatives chosen by the site administration or the public may not be removed at staff discretion, and instead hold their positions until removed by userbase request, or by resignation.
In the event of a request for review, three members will be chosen at random from amongst the user representatives, and two members will be chosen at random from among the administration representatives. However, tribunal members may recuse themselves from hearing the case. Recusal is appropriate whenever other members of the tribunal are considered better suited to hear the case, or when a personal conflict is at stake. In the event that personal conflicts disqualify a quorom of the representatives, the remaining representatives will determine the appropriate procedure, such as proceeding with whichever members remain.
Selection of Members
Selection of the inaugural tribunal staff members will be managed by the global and administrative staff. Following these selections, changes to the roster of the tribunal staff members must follow the procedure detailed below.
Selection of the inaugural tribunal userbase members should take place through informal consensus amongst non-staff participating in CI, if possible. If broad agreement (80%) on the slate of candidates is possible through this method, no formal vote will be required. Otherwise, a poll will be opened in CI.
Once the inaugural tribunal has been selected, the procedure for replacing userbase tribunal members shall be appointment by the remaining userbase tribunal members. However, members of the userbase may call for a vote in lieu of appointment, and if a total of ten non-staff members support a vote, a public nomination and public voting thread will be created in CI. The nomination period should last one week, and the voting period should last two weeks.
Removal of Tribunal Members
Neither userbase tribunal members nor staff members sitting on the tribunal may be forced to resign by the site administration, even in the event of a termination of a staff tribunal member from the staff, or a suspension from the website.
The mechanism for removal of a tribunal member is a request by the userbase, seconded by ten non-staff members. A voting thread will be opened in CI, with 2/3 majority required for removal. Site staff are permitted to participate in the voting.
Removal from the tribunal must follow this procedure even in the unlikely event that a tribunal member is banned or suspended from the website. However, nothing in this section should be read as restricting the staff's discretion in banning or suspending tribunal members. In the incredibly unlikely event one or more suspensions/bannings prevent a tribunal member from participating in the review process, that process shall be conducted off site.
Voting Fraud
In the event that the proceedings are subjected to accusations of gimmick-based voting fraud, the existing members of the tribunal may vote to establish procedures for reviewing the voting record, such as disallowing posters beneath a certain postcount from participating.
Location and Lounge Access
The tribunal may convene in either a private or public location, at its discretion. In the event the tribunal convenes in a private location, a report of the proceedings shall be provided to the public at the time that the judgment is finalized.
The tribunal will be bound by a confidentiality agreement regarding mod lounge material, to be established by the tribunal members in consultation with the staff. Changes to the staff confidentiality agreements will not affect the tribunals' purview, unless ratified by a majority of the tribunal. The tribunals' scope of confidentiality takes precedence over the staff confidentiality policy, in the case of staff members sitting on the tribunal and performing their duties in that capacity.
The standard operating procedure for tribunal access to mod lounge and mod chat material will be to select an administrator or global moderator of its choice, and request material for review. The staff may not deny full and complete access to requested information without the permission of either the site owner, or the tribunal. Nor may the staff delete, hide, or obscure information, without the permission of either the site owner or the tribunal.
In the event more comprehensive access is required, the tribunal can request an account designed to allow tribunal access to the pertinent areas of the mod lounge and/or mod chat areas. The administration will manage the password and permissions for this account, and change the password at the conclusion of the proceedings. The administration has discretion to refuse tribunal access to any area of the site through this account.
Alternatively, the administration can move threads from the mod lounge into the private tribunal subforum for review.
Process
A simple majority of the participating tribunal members must reach a consensus on the appropriate remedial action, if any, in order to require staff action in compliance with the tribunal's judgment.
If an action for the removal of a tribunal member is brought concurrently with a request for review, the removal action must be resolved prior to reaching the merits on the request for review. However, repeated removal actions against the same member of the tribunal will not be grounds for delaying review.
EDIT: Oh, I misread what you were arguing for here. If the idea is reviewing every infraction/suspension and second-guessing THAT...yikes. That seems outside the province of what the group should be doing.
If there's an ongoing systemic problem, they can talk about nuking it if it's a big enough deal. But nitpicking infractions is just going to be more administrative burden than it's worth.
Edit retracted.
I'll just echo the sentiment from this post: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=8725154&postcount=128
The past few days have seen talk that, IMHO has amounted to nothing significant occurring other that to speed up an already occurring process. Ria had yet to return from his holiday and answer to anything raised against him previously, all this hoohah did was force him to take time off from his holiday to deal with it immediately.
From this 'dealing with it', a suggestion was made for this 'creation of a tribunal' thing. I am summarily against the idea. As has already been said already, this sort of thing has been raised many times in the past.
It was a bad idea every other time it was suggested and it's still a bad idea. I personally feel that the very existence of this thread is a mistake.
Quite frankly, I feel the tribunal would be useless. Only serving as dead weight and the source of nothing more than incessant pettiness and posturing.
At no time in my memory would the use of any such body have provided a superior means to resolving any staff error than what what was actually used. This includes the most recent drama over ria.
I also feel that allowing users the ability to interpret the rules would undermine the entire point of having staff to enforce them.
This is especially the case where grey areas exist. Moderators already talk such actions into the ground, considering having a group of users second guess it is beyond insane.
You may notice that I used the word 'feel' a lot, I just want to make sure everyone knows this is just me speaking.
Now, I know I'm not the most articulate writer, so I'm going to restate that I find this proposal abhorrent and that I will personally do everything in my power to work against it.
I encourage anybody who feels the same to do the same.
As someone who isn't even remotely involved with the process, I don't think you have any ability to make any assertion about the reasons people are or are not hired.
As far as I've seen, staff are chosen based on their abilities and community involvement. Any other similarities are coincidental.
Or is this you raising issue with the abilities of the current staff to do their job?
And the last round of applications was December last year, I'm surprised you forgot.
Very well said.
Vox populi has won out, as it usually should. Rian has stepped down from administration and moved into a position that probably suits him and the userbase better.
Now, however, comes the demagoguery and populist appeal that invariably follows any mass movement. Tribunal? Watchdogs? Are we kidding ourselves here? This is a Magic forum, not post-Gaddafi Libya. We definitely don't need this level of bureaucracy on the site and I don't think that we as average users are or should be entitled to micromanage the staff on any level whatsoever.
Are we visiting this site to enjoy a community of MTG players, mafia players, artists, Gutterites, and all the other weird and wonderful folk who frequent it, or are we here to play Model U.N. and cry about not being adequately represented on, to borrow a phrase, a "children's card game" forum?
Put your faith in the admins and let's get on with our lives. I'd like to be able to log onto this site without the entitlement brigade assailing me with protests over every little thing they perceive the staff as having done wrong, which now needs redress via a CI thread, a 10-pt-font sig linking to that thread, or God forbid, a "Tribunal."
"...a talisman against all evil, so long as you obey me."
To the extent there's an argument that it has too much power to interfere/advise/second-guess on staff turf, its jurisdiction can be reduced. But I think the only day-to-day type function that's been suggested at all, is taking a peek at the appeals sub and being able to give feedback, and I don't think that function is essential.
EDIT: See edit to 134.