Tribunal Decision

[Mímirswell]

Proposer: Mimirswell
Supporters:

Rationale: The Tribunal is very public and can be embarrassing for a member to endure. However, in order for people to perceive the Tribunal as a fair system, it is necessary to be able to scrutinize the decisions. The following decision provides for both and will hopefully increase the number of individuals who seek redress there.

Tribunal Decision

The Tribunal forum permissions are modified so that you can only view threads you have created.

In addition, a sub-forum is created for the publication of cases. After a case has concluded, unless the member requests otherwise, it is moved into the sub-forum. In the sub-forum, all members can view all threads but cannot post.

[Scorch]

I ... don't think this would be effective, to be honest.

I'll say more later, I just don't have the time right now.

[Kaweh]

I don't get the point of it if members can read it afterwards anyway. It would be just as embarrassing. Now you may argue that it's up to the OP if the thread will be viewable by all in the end or not, but you said the standard procedure will be to just move the thread into the subforum, so I don't really get the point.

K.K

[Mímirswell]

The member would simply request for it not to be moved at the conclusion and it would remain private. We could reverse the procedure and make it private unless requested to be public but either way, the member can forgo public release...

[Kaweh]

The member would simply request for it not to be moved at the conclusion and it would remain private. We could reverse the procedure and make it private unless requested to be public but either way, the member can forgo public release...

Sounds better, but why not ask him after the decision has been made, via PM, for instance? See, my point is, most of the members won't even realize they have the right to decide whether it shall be public or not. Asking them afterwards would maybe be the best solution, IMHO. Could be done in the same thread, even.

K.K

[Mímirswell]

Oh they will definitely be asked, make no mistake about that.

[sapi]

The member would simply request for it not to be moved at the conclusion and it would remain private. We could reverse the procedure and make it private unless requested to be public but either way, the member can forgo public release...

I would say private unless it's requested to be made public.

If that was the case, I'd support; but as it is, it's still keeping the same modus operandi with a different justification

[Mímirswell]

I do not feel strongly one way or the other about which is the default setting. The important facet is that people have a right to a measure of privacy.

[Tom Paine]

I do tend to agree with sapi's point but must note that this will prevent effective public scrutiny. Only those cases that the members feel vindicated by or feel were particularly unjust will see the light of day; this will therefore tend to give a false view of the Tribunal, whereas the alternative allows the majority of threads to see the light of day, creating a far more effective method of scrutiny of the Tribuniciate body.

[Niccolo Machiavelli]

I wouldn't support it, as I think the Tribunal beeing openly visible may have some educational or informative effect for members.

They can see precedent cases and may get a better idea on how matters are handled by the Tribunal.

Have there been cases in which embarrassment has been reported to be the reason for members not to bring their case forward in the Tribunal?

I can hardly see how anyone can be embarrassed about his virtual personality on an anonymous internet forum, especially if they feel to be right, which I assume to be a prerequisite for bringing ones case forward in the Tribunal.

[Fabolous]

I'm fine with the proposal, but I'd certainly prefer the default to be publication. The occasional exception of privacy is fine, as its possible certain members might be unocomfortable, but the overwhelming majority of cases need to be publicly available.

[Scorch]

I'm fine with the proposal, but I'd certainly prefer the default to be publication. The occasional exception of privacy is fine, as its possible certain members might be unocomfortable, but the overwhelming majority of cases need to be publicly available.

That's the only way I'd support this proposal. Though I suppose it'd be visible afterwards.

I just think we're going to do more harm than good, with this proposal.

[Gaius Baltar]

I support.

I had always thought that a member could communicate via Pm's to the moderation squad, but there are no guidelines published along those lines.

This may also be used to deal with members who deliberately break the TOS to inflame the board with their own brand of political passions. So perhaps a amendment could be added allowing the moderators to keep such material out of the public forums as well. They are, in fact, nothing more than a version of the "disruptive postings" currently disallowed by the TOS.

[Lord Condormanius]

Personally, I don't like the sound of this. I think that the public sphere is the most legitimate way of doing things. The proceedings of any tribunal case should be viewable by the community at large, from start to finish. I don't think that anyone outside of the incident should be posting in the threads, but the cases themselves should certainly be under the scrutiny of the community while they are being decided. Full visibilty of the process is the best way to ensure fairness, IMHO.

LC

[the Black Prince]

it strikes me that this would be better as an amendment to the existing tribunal section of the Constitution

Section 4 Article 2

Members may create a thread in the Tribunal Forum, The Judges will study the case details, and may request any additional information on the member from the Senior Moderators. The Judges will then post the majority decision. Only the Poster, Judges and the Moderating Staff can see this thread.

A sub-forum is created for the publication of cases. After a case has concluded, unless the member requests otherwise, it is moved into the sub-forum. In the sub-forum, all members can view all threads but cannot post.

The Judges are not tasked to decide the appropriateness or validity of a Forum Rule of Term of Service, and may only rule on whether the Term was correctly enforced and the punishment suitable for the offence.

that would be the Curators suggestion on a matter of procedure.

as the Black Prince, i agree with LC, i do not like the idea of hidden justice. Justice must not simply be done, it must be seen to be done. This isn't the kind of thing that needs to be, nor should be hidden away.

[Hotspur]

Oppose.

Public scrutiny is the only check on abuse of power and favoritism. Allowing for the viewing of the thread as a fait accompli does nothing, so not only do I oppose this, I would end the super-secret MSN compromise to Tribunal cases.

[Perikles]

it strikes me that this would be better as an amendment to the existing tribunal section of the Constitution

Section 4 Article 2

Members may create a thread in the Tribunal Forum, The Judges will study the case details, and may request any additional information on the member from the Senior Moderators. The Judges will then post the majority decision. Only the Poster, Judges and the Moderating Staff can see this thread.

A sub-forum is created for the publication of cases. After a case has concluded, unless the member requests otherwise, it is moved into the sub-forum. In the sub-forum, all members can view all threads but cannot post.

The Judges are not tasked to decide the appropriateness or validity of a Forum Rule of Term of Service, and may only rule on whether the Term was correctly enforced and the punishment suitable for the offence.

that would be the Curators suggestion on a matter of procedure.

as the Black Prince, i agree with LC, i do not like the idea of hidden justice. Justice must not simply be done, it must be seen to be done. This isn't the kind of thing that needs to be, nor should be hidden away.

I would allow people to post in the thread after, that way if someone has an observation they can make it in the thread.

[Niccolo Machiavelli]

I would allow people to post in the thread after, that way if someone has an observation they can make it in the thread.

Regardless of the op, I think this is a great idea - that way the tribunal commentary thread could be disentangled.

I would support that if someone brought it forward as an isolated proposal.

[Tom Paine]

as the Black Prince, i agree with LC, i do not like the idea of hidden justice. Justice must not simply be done, it must be seen to be done. This isn't the kind of thing that needs to be, nor should be hidden away.

Is justice done when some people don't wish to go before the Tribunal not because they feel unjustly warned, but because they feel embarassed? Is justice done when public scrutiny during a case is putting people off? And is justice not seen when cases are released after the fact?

Oppose.

Public scrutiny is the only check on abuse of power and favoritism. Allowing for the viewing of the thread as a fait accompli does nothing, so not only do I oppose this, I would end the super-secret MSN compromise to Tribunal cases.

See the note on showing them after the fact; note also that appeals to Hex can happen. As to MSN conversations, I don't think those can be ended, though I would limit them to purely between judges: Judges should not be compromising with anyone, they should be judging and nothing else.

[Lord Condormanius]

Is justice done when some people don't wish to go before the Tribunal not because they feel unjustly warned, but because they feel embarassed? Is justice done when public scrutiny during a case is putting people off? And is justice not seen when cases are released after the fact?

The desire for justice must be stronger than the fear of embarassment. Regardless of the diffferent things that might or could be issues, the fact remains that transparency is essential, because otherwise there is a great potential for abuse. When cases are only able to be viewed after the fact, the process of justice is not seen. Also, there is the offense to be considered...if the offense is a ToS violation, isn't that a violation of the laws of the community? Doesn't that give the commmunity an interest and a stake in the decision and the process by which it is reached?

See the note on showing them after the fact; note also that appeals to Hex can happen. As to MSN conversations, I don't think those can be ended, though I would limit them to purely between judges: Judges should not be compromising with anyone, they should be judging and nothing else.

Showing them after the fact does not have the same effect of transparent Justice. As for the MSN controversy...I think that any kind of deals that are made in regards to disciplinary actions for TWC should cease immediately. They strike me as 'backroom' type workings that circumvent the procedures that are in place. Again, there is a lack of visibility of justice and these things should simply not be allowed.