Fircoal wrote:This will do nothing. 4-3 mods can uphold any stupidity that they do. It should be 5-4 user-mod. More likely a user would go with a mod than vice versa.
I put the 4-3 mods in because then king achilles or whoever can trust the decision more, though if the forum users are hand-picked, I suppose 5-4 users could be good.
Pirlo wrote:sorry Sully... for me, I don't trust most mods.... i believe they cover each others...
problem is that most people (specifically mods) who have been here at CC for +3 years think that they own the site and can abuse newer people

I think people have a rather exaggerated and unrealistic view of the mods' integrity, much like yourself. They make mistakes, but it doesn't mean that they're evil people trying to abuse their power to unjustly ban people. I'm saying mods definitely screw up, everyone does, so the SC is there to fix their mistakes.
Pirlo wrote:well, you started this not me.... let me tell you something about rules... if a mod abused & banned you from chat or forum, all you can do is to report that abuse,.. and again, NOTHING will happen...
1st of all, we have a very dumb rule which encourages abuse... it's the DISCRETION part of rules... look at this part very carefully:
"Because of the dynamic and always-going nature of chat, all rules and guidelines are interpreted according to the situation solely at the Moderator's discretion."i know you are talking about forum not chat, but they are the same, trust me.
anyway, in the aforesaid part of provisions, it's obvious that "DISCRETION" gives mods the right to customize any word and make up a big deal...
now I was abused because i said a certain word, so I was accused of "Bigotry".. problem is not that English = 2nd not 1st language for me.. I used the technical term which I read in academic books... my guilt was that I didn't know that the term is offensive in USA which i never visited
I suggested making the rules fixed not extendible.... at lease, when a mod wants to report/ban a violator, that mod shall take a screen shot to justify the decision he/she made... otherwise, a mod has no right to ban... is it hard? it's way easier than holding a court...
I reported the abusive mod, and guess what... that mode was promoted few weeks later!
rules here are exactly like "THE LAW OF EMERGENCIES IN EGYPT"..... any cop has the right to arrest anyone for suspecting anything under law of emergencies...
now do you think your court will ever see the light?? man... before you have a court, you have to have a law.... a car with no gas is useless...

See, what you've brought up is
exactly what the Supreme Court would be there for! They would be the ones to lay down the specifics and interpret the Forum/Chat Guidelines so that the "discretion" part will become almost non-existent, because the SC will set precedents with the cases they resolve. In your case, the SC would have probably ruled in your favor and so the mods would be more informed when considering banning someone in a similar situation, you see what I mean?
Woodruff wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:Woodruff wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:- This will help CC to be more fair in the forums.
I understand what you're trying to do, and I respect that. But I just have to say this...if the owner of the site or the head moderator (either one) don't trust their own moderators "to be more fair in the fora" then they shouldn't put those moderators in those positions.
Essentially what I mean is...if the site were to agree to your suggestion, they would in fact be admitting that their own moderators cannot handle the positions they've been placed in.
With that in mind, I cannot see why the site would possibly want to take on this suggestion.
Are you saying that the moderators are infallible? Everyone makes mistakes, you know, so they're bound to make unfair or uninformed decisions at one point or another, and I'm sure many already have.
How could you possibly have gotten that from what I posted? In all seriousness, that is a trainwreck of an understanding of a post. Please try re-reading it.
Sigh... Woodruff, I think it is you that is not understanding what you yourself typed. To sum up what you said, you said that basically, if the Supreme Court were implemented, the administrators would be admitting that their mods make mistakes, which they do. The SC would be there to define specifics of forum/chat rules and correct unfair bannings by uninformed mods. I was saying that in essence, you said the mods are infallible, because they would be admitting to screwing up if they implemented this idea, which they can't, because they're mods and what they say goes. Quite fallacious thinking, I must say. Did I trainwreck again, Woodruff?
TheForgivenOne wrote:I really don't see this going through. Here's my thoughts -
1. As king achilles said, even if their was a "fair" panel, if a ban was ever withheld, the banned user would still complain that the system was corrupted.
2. From my perspective, the users will 9/10 times say the ban was unjust. Why? Because if they agree with the mods, they will suddenly get a bad reputation from other users. What user really want's a bad rep in the forums?
Lol, TFO, you're making a lot of unfair assumptions. You
assume every user whose ban is withheld by the SC is going to bitch and moan and you
assume that a user that agrees with the mods will be picked on (which, I might add, is a little ridiculous, no?). In essence, you
assume the attitudes of users towards mods will essentially be the same, destructive angst it is now. I think you are quite wrong about this idea, my friend. Even if this idea has the slightest chance of being more fair or have a positive effect on people's attitudes toward the mods (which I think it has a lot more of a chance than "the slightest"), it's certainly worth it, no? Would you rather keep all the bad mojo against mods and not attempt at solving the problem because it's "too much work"?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:The current system is much cheaper and less energy-intensive than this. Therefore, your suggestion isn't welcome.
I'm going to expect that the positive changes of your proposal wouldn't be worth the slight retaining of a few current CC members. New members' incentives for joining are very little determined by the SIB's or the forum's way of handling appeals (or really the forum itself). Continued memberships aren't really influenced by this either---except in the minds of very very few. Too few to matter.
Thanks for the suggestion, VS!
Too few to matter? So you're saying not everyone is important, then? It seems to me that the ones that are influenced by this that you say "don't matter" are the ones that have been treated unfairly, no? You can't possibly let unfairness be, can you? What if you were one of those few people? As for the money thing, I see your point, but you're not paying extra for this add-on, so I don't see how that argument holds water at all.
-Sully
Now you're just making stuff up (regarding the underlined).
You do understand the "money thing," but you're overlooking the other costs in trying to implement this. You have to see it from the owner's and administration's perspective:
Is this suggestion worth the cost of implementing? SEeing that
the benefits are so few, then no, it's not worth it.
The "benifits are too few"? You think that it's not worth it to make the forums more fair? It seems to me the portion of my quote that you've underlined isn't so far off, then, no? Why do you care how much it costs, anyways? You don't have to pay anything. If the admins decide they think the cost is too high, then
they can say so.
-Sully