Tribunal Decorum

[Erich von Manstein]

As many of you are well aware, the Tribunal is closed for business until the issue over what and who the Tribunal shall be is resolved. In the meantime, we've been accruing quite a few appeals of suspensions and cautions that are not being resolved. When the new Tribunal is established it will have a tremendous backlog to work through. Adding to the difficulty, certain threads have turned into veritable three-ring circuses; witness Case 85: Professor420. His is not the only one.

Which brings me to my point. Whenever this new Tribunal is established, it is going to have a difficult time sifting through literally pages of arguments/counterarguments, in addition to the virtual amicus briefs provided by 3rd party observers. This will make it extremely difficult for them to properly do their jobs and, as a result, will make it difficult for the appellants (those appealing their punishment) to get a fair hearing. So I was thinking that it could be good for the Curia to pass some sort of Tribunal Rules of Procedure...aka:

1. Appellant creates a thread in the Tribunal forum, stating the case and why they are appealing the moderator's actions. If the appellant has been suspended, a moderator or administrator will open the thread for them and the appellant will forward their appeal to them to be placed in the thread.

2. The moderator involved in the action, and only that moderator, shall present the charges against the appellant and the reasons behind both giving out the infraction and its subsequent punishment.

3. Appellant shall be given the opportunity to present a counterargument to the moderator. If the appellant is suspended, this counterargument shall be sent to a moderator or administrator who will post it in the thread for the appellant.

4. Moderator shall be given the opportunity to present a counterargument.

5. Both sides rest and the Tribunal reviews the case, handing down a decision.

This will work whether the new Tribunal takes on the form of the old one or is entirely different, such as if the Curia hears all appeals. It's main purpose is to keep these appeals clean and organized, preventing them from turning into the confusing messes that many of them are becoming.

Thoughts? Comments?

[imb39]

Being a meddler - does that mean that the admins shouldn't get involed. Even as 'expert witnesses'?

[Silver Guard]

I think that if they are to do so, then they can quite easily do so by means of PMs or IMs, rather then taking part in the threads. A kind of experts opinion on the matter, without forcing a hand.

[the Black Prince]

generally, i was hoping not to create a very formal and procedural judicial system with advocates witnesses etc etc

i envisaged the tribunal to be more a case of simply one person, the warned member, posting a single post identifying his warning, and why he was given it, and why he thought it was unwarranted. the tribunal then retiring to discuss, and perhaps PM any relevant staff members if they felt the need, and then give judgement.

argument and counter-argument just leads to delays and a very formalistic system... i don't see it as being needed.


i would however certainly some rules for the tribunal are needed, perhaps the most obvious one being that no-one but the aggrieved party and the judges should be posting in the tribunal, with all other posts deleted (judges having local mod powers in the tribunal forum). 3rd party comments are totally unnecessary, the judges can see the context of what happened themselves, and if posts have been removed, moderators can provide their contents.


i honestly wasn't aware the current tribunal had stopped work. i was under the expectation that the staff would carry on reviewing cases until judges were elected, much the way that Spiff will carry on being Curator until his replacement is elected.

[Erich von Manstein]

argument and counter-argument just leads to delays and a very formalistic system... i don't see it as being needed.

I assure you that I had quite the contrary intention, although I should have made that clear. I proposed this section more as a limitation on the length of arguments. As Case 85 has demonstrated, no such limitation can result in stubborn appellants continuing on for pages in response to every argument presented against them following the original. I had hoped we could keep this to a minimum by providing for a set number of counterarguments. This would also give both appellant and moderator the incentive to keep their arguments brief and clear, making it easier for the judges to analyze the case. As it stands, I have nothing but pity for whichever judges are supposed to hear Case 85...

This limitation would be a minimum, not a maximum. If the appellant wished to say nothing at all other than his original appeal, that would be his perogative.

[imb39]

It depends if you want things to be as open as possible. There again, I have been swayed by the argument that much of the talk should be private, ie the thread as a whole should be.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

I would say no, give the Tribunal full scope to decide how to hear each case.

When I was doing it I often talked to others, often asked 'witnesses' for clarification and often just made up my mind myself. It all depended on what the case was.

So I would seriously recomend we keep it as simple and flexible as we can, there should be nothing that prevents the tribunal going to either extreme (ie. closed decision between the three of them to full Curia vote).

[Simetrical]

Amen to Tactical.

[the Black Prince]

I opposed this amendment, i did not want to go down that road.

However, since its inception, the Tribunal created some basic guidelines, ones that followed the same outline as previous tribunals to ensure the smooth running of the tribunal, and to allow us to get on with our jobs.

In trying to uphold these guidelines, and prevent the tribunal forum being turned into a spam fest, or large scale on going verbal tennis matches between staff and members over various cautions and warnings, we have been attacked by a small minority of curial members who claim we have no mandate to enforce any rules in the tribunal, and one who even seems to claim that the ToS don't apply to the tribunal.

While i cannot and do not speak for my fellow judges, Justinian and Siblesz, i for one am absolutely sick of it.

While no other curial body be it a curial committee, the CdeC or the Modding Registry has the precise and technical details of the way it is managed governed by the Curia, it would seem the only way any stability will occur in the tribunal is if the guidelines we currently use, or some other detailed guidance on how the tribunal will work is codified in the constitution.

I personally think its absolutely ridiculous to have to go to this length, but since i'm told that as a judge, i have no authority to come up with and enforce guidelines on how the tribunal will work i am left with no recourse but to seek some constitutionally defined rules and apply them rigidly and to the letter.

I'm therefore resurrecting this thread


adapting Mansteins original proposal in light of current practice (especially regarding suspended members)

Section 4 Article 4

Tribunal Rules and Procedures

Posting:

• Do not create a thread to appeal moderation in general, only a specific case.
• You may appeal a Warning/Infraction, Caution, or a Suspension/Ban.
• Please use the following format for your post:
  Appeal # (Roman numerals): Username - Warning/Infraction, Caution, or Suspension
  example - Appeal IX: Bob Smith - Warning

Procedure:

• You are only allowed one initial post in your topic to state your entire case and appeal. Further posts will be excised.
• The moderator who made the judgement is allowed one initial post in response to debate your point and state his reasoning's. Further posts will be excised. The Chief Moderator is also allowed one additional post.
• Only the moderator concerned, the member concerned and the Chief Moderator may post. Posts by other members will be excised except where posted at the invitation of a Judge.
• Further posts by concerned parties will then be allowed only at the discretion of the Tribunal.
• The case will then be judged by the Tribunal in the judge's forum and the verdict posted.
• The verdict will represent the judgement of the Tribunal, but be written by a single judge, who will add his name to the thread title to indicate which judge has handed down the judgement. All judgements will be by unanimous or majority opinion, and this will be indicated in the thread
• In a majority judgement, the dissenting judge may include a minority opinion at his discretion
• The verdict is final.

Glossary:

• GRANTED - The Tribunal have upheld the appeal
• DENIED - The Tribunal have refused the appeal
• PENDING - Having received posts by member and moderator, the Tribunal are now considering their judgement in this case.

i regret that certain members have made this necessary

[Perikles]

I opposed this amendment, i did not want to go down that road.

And I oppose yours.

You are only allowed one initial post in your topic to state your entire case and appeal. Further posts will be excised.

The moderator who made the judgment is allowed one initial post in response to debate your point and state his reasoning's. Further posts will be excised. The Chief Moderator is also allowed one additional post.

Absurd. Under this system, you get the 'defendant' posting first. Then the moderator can deconstruct their argument and add their own opinion afterwards, giving the first person to post no chance of reply. Debate in these situations is not a bad thing, it doesn't matter how long the case takes (within reason) as long as the judgment is fair and based upon all available evidence.

Only the moderator concerned, the member concerned and the Chief Moderator may post. Posts by other members will be excised except where posted at the invitation of a Judge.

What if others have a valid opinion or may have been involved? Why do they have to go some bureaucratic process of applying for invitation when it's more sensible that they can post anyway? Off topic comments can be deleted if need be.

[Muizer]

I agree this ought not to be necessary. But, to be honest, given the bizarre behaviour of the judges in a couple of cases I can understand why defendants would be tempted to abandon "decorum". Nothing to legislate against though. Just hoping the Citizens will elect a wiser tribunal next time round.........if of course there's anything to choose at all.

[Erich von Manstein]

I, too, am sorry to see that certain members have made this an issue. Unfortunately, one must resort to the lowest common denominator when applying a standard procedure and anyone who has witnessed some of the more recent cases before the Tribunal can understand that this is a problem.

I see only one problem with tBP's proposal, and this is the lack of a means of enforcement. Much as American and British judges are allowed to hold people in contempt of court for bogging down the judicial process, I think the Tribunal needs to hold such powers here. Normally this is the realm of the moderating staff but, given the extraordinary nature of the Tribunal (where its sole purpose is to attack Staff decisions) there would be an inherent conflict of interests were this to hold true here. The only disinterested party in the Tribunal is the Tribunal itself; therefore, it only seems logical that they would be the only party within that forum to wield moderating powers. They current do in practice but this has not been codified. I think a clause should be inserted stating that the Tribunal has the power to hand down cautions and warnings based on conduct within the Tribunal itself.

[Plutarch]

I have a random question...is there something against adding additional members to the tribunal? Instead of 3 judges, perhaps have 5 or 7 available judges with only 3 judges presiding over any one case. This would allow for a better advancement through backed up cases, and also allow for a rotation of sorts to . I know it would greatly increase the number of Judiciary Officials, but It would allow Justices to be able to take a break without having to resign from office due to the necessity of a replacement justice. I may be rambling, but it is a little late. Anyhow just an opinion. :Thumbsup:

Aside from that I see no real impediment to ratifying this amendment. My only concern is that the Tribunal be effective in providing quality hearings in a timely manner.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

I have only one thing to say about all this, not hugely constructive but with a lot of feeling:

what a load of bollocks

Basically the problem is that something like the Tribunal can only work for as long as people respect the judges and their decisions. Immediately they don't then all the rules in the world won't change things. Yes Bel is being a pain in the Tribunal but making yet more rules is not the way to deal with it. Making more rules simply shows that the people doing the job are incapable of carrying it out in my opinion, nobody in the past has needed loads of 'rules' and we had to deal with much more difficult people than Bel (and the fact that we were admins didn't amount to much - you couldn't use moderator powers in the tribunal).

So please, stop with this insesant drive to create more and more detailed rules and just get on with the job. For example:

• if someone keeps posting in a thread and you don;t like it (they aren't part of the case for example) then just delete their posts and send them a polite PM saying why.
• if someone keeps raising unjustified cases just close them, don't debate why, just do it

Finally, if you can't do the job without resorting to yet more rules then I would respectfully suggest you can't do the job and should resign (and this is nothing personal, just a tiredness with yet more rules)

[the Black Prince]

tried what you suggest, got told judges didn't have the power to do that

Ah so basically yet another motion that was not ratified by the Curia, seriously I'd love it if you were to actually put all these new rules and regulations to vote,

and

If you want to change how things work you should ask the Curia, the Judges dont have the authority to implement such changes

so, either, as judges, we can implement rules to run the tribunal, or we can't

i'm told we can't, so i bring it here to have it codifed, only to be told

what a load of bollocks

whats it to be?

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

what's it to be

JFDI

For the tribunal to work in practice you only need one thing (which you have) and that is the agreement of staff and owner that staff will uphold the Tribunal decisions to reverse warnings etc.

Other than that the Tribunal doesn't actually need anyone else's support (unless the Curia decide to do away with it).

Some of the Tribunal's judgements will always cause bad feeling, people who appeal obviously believe in their appeal and don't like to see it denied.

But, and it is a big but, the Tribunal should never, ever enter into discussions on their judgements, as we have seen over the last month or so that just causes chaos. You don't ever see a RL judge explaining in the newspapers why they made a decision, or a referee for that matter. The reason they don't is simple, it undermines their authority and they know it.

So that is why I keep saying (and will continue to keep saying) that the Tribunal should have only one rule:

• The Tribunal's decision on any aspect of its running or any case is final, a majority decision is acceptable.

You then have loads of guidelines (ie. the stuff you have posted above) but you make it clear they are only guidelines and will be subject to implementation of the rule.

If you want to have a big trial then you do it, if you want to make quick decisions then do it, its all up to the Tribunal but the key is to JFDI, don't endlessly discuss or legislate......

[the Black Prince]

You don't ever see a RL judge explaining in the newspapers why they made a decision

every single judge in the common law world gives his reason for deciding the case, its called the judgement.

i don't think there's been any situation where we've actually debated our judgements, each time its been tried, we've simply said, decision is final.

the one time someone tried to argue further, i was prevented from immediately closing the thread because of alleged impropriety. the tribunal then unanimously reaffirmed its principle. decision final, and justinian shut the discussion down.


the point is, i'm told i don't have the authority to implement and enforce such things as guidelines without curial permission

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

so what are you worrying about? JFDI.....

[Belisarius]

I was hoping I could get Aden to open such a proposal and have waited diligently and did, as Tactical so skillfully point out, make life difficult. But if being difficult is what it takes to rouse a “Tribune” to consult those individuals he professes to protect then I personally find it justified and would do it again and again especially when the Tribunal has been turned into such a hollow complaints department. These rules Aden and the tribunal implemented were implemented without consulting any citizen body. I thank Aden for finally respecting the Citizens he was elected... Sorry I mean appointed (I made the mistake of reading the constitution there), its also regrettable that he did this months too late. What is interesting is that after continually stating that the rules were not his idea and that the other Tribunes and Soren had apparently more to do with them then him, it is he who has proposed them and none of the others have at any point aided him or supported him, that is indeed interesting but no doubt he will send them a message in the tribunal staff forum now and ratify the situation showing unity, no matter, he has already shown who the main influence behind these rules is. The die has been cast and as if the fact Aden is a law student and has used phrases such as, “held in contempt” wasn’t enough to dispel his assurance that he had a minimal part in this morally unconstitutional travesty, this thread surely gives us all confirmation that this is far from the truth. Please, credit us with some intelligence.

The point to be made is that we did pressure Aden for this amendment, and we did so because in an idealistic situation I personally wouldn’t mind the Tribunes being free to run the tribunal, but not as they see fit obviously. As if it weren’t bad enough that the one individual who professes to enforce the constitution and respect the citizen body didn’t put himself up for some form of ratification, to hold a position with no Curial support to defend the Citizens and then arrogantly impose seemingly unpopular rules without consultation, how are we suppose to respect the Tribunal after all this? Siblesz and Justinian have not called themselves defenders of the curia and have not opened up complaints threads every other day about trivialities, but Aden has and to me and many others this is one big triviality that has to be fixed.

Justinian did bring back the Tribunal, but I don’t think he can deny the fact that I not only served as advisor but pressured and suggested it constantly, the Tribunal is probably one of Justinian’s greatest legacies from his time in staff and yet, it saddens me to say he is allowing it to turn into nothing more than a glorified complaints department, and noone can deny it has not! It is sad; he will probably be made Divus about the same time that his great creation will die. Can Tactical deny that the Tribunal has changed? Can Justinian deny that the tribunal has changed? Can Ian? Garbarsardar? The question is why! The answer is, we don’t know, there is no reason.

The Tribunal, from a staff perspective was something I described to Archer that would improve the relationship between Curia and Staff, an institution that would combine Objective analysis and experience with subjective analysis on whether the case approved or disproved would be a benefit to the member and community as a whole. The Tribunal was an institution of mercy where, “Of you made a mistake, we will forgive you if you promise to behave” was the norm which in turn improved the staff’s image and allowed for reformation and dispelled notions that we did not care about the plebian. This is no longer the case, the Tribunal is an institution that now states, “though you have made a mistake, though you have improved, though you are human we will not offer any form of mercy or propose repentance because according to our “set-in-stone” codes you disobeyed the rules and must suffer the term that was codified in the rules. Basically the Tribunal now either antagonizes the Curia or makes the staff out to be incompetent, such as the statement made by Aden directed towards Staff. I must say that antagonizing the Curia and trying to make staff look incompetent seems to be the hobby of the minority of the Tribunal, and lets face it, its not exactly something we are not used to from this minority.


At this point many of you have realized that I oppose this bastardisation of what was once one of the community’s greatest assets. What right do unelected and un-ratified officials have to dictate to us when and where we can use our voice? So the price we have paid for having an elected tribunal is to have people appointed with no ratification and have it changed into this pitiful sham? This is supposed to be a new age where we gain more of a voice and yet the Tribunal is and has been downgraded? I would rather give the Tribunal back to staff with the assurance that the old method would be re adopted than see this farce of legal gymnastics that more closely resembles the Karma Sutra than a court of law continue and antagonize all elements of the community. Though I feel it is entirely possible to have both a fair tribunal and have the curia control it.

None of the proposals will fix the problem! Aden and the other Judges must put themselves up for vote and let the community decide if they are doing a good job. That will be the first step in fixing this “triviality”. Aden gain legitimacy before pontificating rules and regulations. I disagree with Tacticals suggestions and vehemently oppose any such ad-hoc “patch” solutions.

I have a Proposal –

Have the Tribunes Elected and Ratified! I’m sure that this time I can find at least one opponent to run against them, Garb? Please? 

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

and how does having elected tribunals actually change anything?

not that I'm opposing them, just can't really see it as a panacea...

As far as i can see you want more rules in stone so you can hold people accountable, tBP wants more rules set in stone so that he can do a job and hide behind the rules.

For me both routes are wrong, this is an internet forum no more no less, just get on with doing the job.

as Tactical so skillfully point out