Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 45 of 45

Thread: Tribunal Expediency Act

  1. #41

    Default Re: Tribunal Expediency Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus View Post
    Pursuant to the recent delays regarding the Tribunal, I propose the following.

    I. In the event the Tribunal is unable to conduct its normal function due to inactivity of the Tribunes, the following protocol shall be put into place:
    A. Any pending appeal that is filed within a period of inactivity, or unresolved before such period of inactivity, shall be subject to a stay of punishment.
    B. In the event a period of inactivity is resolved and an appeal resolved in judgment adverse to appellant, the full punishment shall be served.
    C. A stay of punishment SHALL NOT apply to any violations of the Terms of Service pursuant to sections 1.17.13; 1.7.11; 1.7.5; or 1.7.9.


    Definitions:

    "Inactivity" shall be defined as any period of time in which a sitting Tribune has not logged into TWC for two or more weeks.
    "Stay" shall be defined as a postponement of any penalty associated with a moderator interaction until Tribunal inactivity is resolved.
    Regarding clause C, why specifically should 1.7.5, .9, .11, and .13 (I assume 1.17.13 is a typo, and should read 1.7.13) not be stayed? Also, if a stay of punishment is not held for those, then what exactly does that imply? The punishments follow, but an appeal may be taken once the tribunal is active again? Clarity about the implications of this clause are crucial here, and I am not sure what you had in mind.

    On a related note, who only 5, 7, 9, and 13? As Morticia pointed out (rightly, I would argue), some of the worst ToS breaches, and those most regularly found, relate to 1.7.8 and 1.7.14. Why would these also not be subjected to a stay of punishment? Surely someone obviously insulting someone should be subjected to censure, as per the ToS. Do you mean by this proposal that moderation is not permitted to issue warnings, notes, or infractions during such time as the tribunal is inactive? Or do you mean that moderation may do so, but simply that appeals may not be undertaken (an obvious fact, given that the tribunal is, per definition of this article, inactive)?

    Broadly put, I think the underlying idea here might make sense, but it gets wrong the order of actions that go into this whole process.

    1. A user posts something which moderation finds in breach.
    2. Moderation issues a note, warning, or infraction.
    3. A user may appeal that decision in the tribunal.
    4. The tribunal either upholds moderation's decision (note, warning, or infraction stands), partially upholds moderation's decision, but alters it (note, warning, or infraction is changed in some sense), or grants the user's appeal (note, warning, or infraction is lifted).

    The meat of this proposal is dressed up like it only relates to 4., but in reality it seems to imply that 2. cannot be carried out for all potential ToS breaches besides those picked out in clause C. Is that the intent of the proposal, or have I misread it in some way? And to be clear, none of this is meant as critique, but only as clarification.
    | Community Creative Writing
    | My Library
    | My Mapping Resources
    | My Nabataean AAR for EBII
    | My Ongoing Creative Writing

  2. #42
    Søren's Avatar ܁
    Patrician Citizen Magistrate Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Library of Babel
    Posts
    8,877

    Default Re: Tribunal Expediency Act

    I'd suggest that (although I hope not to contribute to this problem) Tribune inactivity may be a persistent and unsurprising feature when the case load is so extremely low.

    Although this will mostly be due to overall activity levels, it occurred to me that the standard text that is sent out with an infraction may discourage appeals more than we would like, especially for newer members less familiar with the unusual way this site operates. It doesn't help that the Appeals Process part currently goes to a 404 error page either!

    Perhaps the current version...

    Current All warnings are centrally logged and reviewed by staff to ensure consistent application of the rules. If you have any complaint about it, you can contact any administrator for clarification, and they will review the infraction. If, after having appealed the infraction to Senior Staff, you still believe that the rules were incorrectly applied, you are welcome to publicly appeal to The Tribunal.

    More detailed information on the appeals process can be found here.


    ...could be modified to something slightly more descriptive and inviting like this?

    Proposed All warnings are centrally logged and reviewed by staff to ensure consistent application of the rules. If you have any complaint about it, you can contact any administrator for clarification, and they will review the infraction. Alternatively you are welcome to publicly appeal by starting a thread in The Tribunal, where an independent panel will consider your case.

    More detailed information on the appeals process can be found here.


    This is obviously ultimately a matter for Hex and staff to decide on rather than the Curia to dictate to them, but it seems relevant for comment here at least, as we're wanting to address the overall activity level of both Tribune and Tribunal.
    Last edited by Søren; August 11, 2022 at 10:31 AM. Reason: fix fieldset tags

  3. #43
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a 7/11 parking lot with Patron and LaCroix
    Posts
    19,893
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Tribunal Expediency Act

    I'd suggest that (although I hope not to contribute to this problem) Tribune inactivity may be a persistent and unsurprising feature when the case load is so extremely low.
    It's almost like we should be selecting tribunes who are more attached to this site than via simply having an office that they don't really care about.

    Check out the TWC D&D game!
    Join the Thema Devia Discord here
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan







  4. #44

    Default Re: Tribunal Expediency Act

    I withdraw this proposal.

  5. #45
    Lifthrasir's Avatar "Capre" Dunkerquois
    Patrician Moderation Mentor Citizen Consul Censor

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    City of Jan Baert
    Posts
    13,925
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: Tribunal Expediency Act

    Closed and archived as per request.
    Under the patronage of Flinn, proud patron of Jadli, from the Heresy Vault of the Imperial House of Hader

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •