(Moved to Vote)Curial Decision: Tribunal rules

[Garbarsardar]

Proposed by: [user]Garbarsardar[/user]
Supported by: [user]Sir Dinadan[/user] [user]scottishranger[/user] [user]kshcshbash[/user] [user]Scorch[/user]

Following the latest controversy about the function of the Tribunal, I propose a modification to the Tribunal Rules:

Posting:

* This forum is intended for threads challenging a specific moderating action on a user. Complaints about moderation in general should be posted in the Suggestus.
* You may appeal any individual and reversible action on a user.
* Please use the following format for your post:
Appeal # (Roman numerals): Username - Warning/Infraction, Caution, or Suspension


Procedure:

* The appelant states his/her caseYou are allowed one initial post in your topic to state your entire case and appeal. Unnecessary posts will be excised.
* The moderator who took the action states his/her reasoning for it. is allowed one initial post to defend his action. Unnecessary posts will be excised.
* Posts by other members not considered directly related to the case, or posts of an uncnostructive nature may be excised at the discretion of the Judges if considered unrelated to the case or unconstructive.
* The case will then be judged by the Tribunal in the judge's forum and the verdict posted.
* The verdict is final.The judges decision on any part of the Tribunal process, up to and including the verdict, is final
* At the Judge's discretion, threads may be left open as a courtesy to a plaintiff and to provide the him/her a chance to respond to the Tribune's decision.


Glossary:

* GRANTED - The Tribunal have upheld the appeal
* DENIED - The Tribunal have refused the appeal
* PENDING - The Tribunal have accepted the case and are currently discussing it.

I think it is more user-friendly now, but I am open to any other suggestion.

[The Walrus]

Support

[scottishranger]

Support

[kshcshbash]

Following the latest controversy about the function of the Tribunal, I propose a modification to the Tribunal Rules:



I think it is more user-friendly now, but I am open to any other suggestion.

It's better. I support it fully, though a distinction between "relevant" members could be a good idea.

* Posts by parties not directly involved may be excised at the discretion of the Judges if considered unrelated to the case or unconstructive.

[Garbarsardar]

It's better. I support it fully, though a distinction between "relevant" members could be a good idea.

Why define the "parties" as not directly involved since the pertinence of their posts is at the discretion of Judges?

If you define a "party" as not directly involved, you simultaneously define members as directly involved.

So, if a member directly involved posts something say...trollish...he/she can argue that it is not at the discretion of a Judge to remove it.

I am sorry for the lengthy explanation but I've seen people sticking to details like this...

[Scorch]

I agree with CNSW, but I support this bill anyway.

[Garbarsardar]

I have no problem of including this but I am unsure of the appropriate wording as to eliminate any misunderstanding...

Ok, I amended. please have a look.

[kshcshbash]

I have no problem of including this but I am unsure of the appropriate wording as to eliminate any misunderstanding...

Ok, I amended. please have a look.

Yep.
call it members instead of "party". They are synonymous but not interchangeable...

[Scorch]

I have no problem of including this but I am unsure of the appropriate wording as to eliminate any misunderstanding...

Ok, I amended. please have a look.

Well done, supported 110%

Yep.
call it members instead of "party". They are synonymous but not interchangeable...

Actually, I think members is alot less ambiguous, and fine for the context it's in.

[scottishranger]

Still supporting...

[rez]

Here's something i don't understand.

If you take out the part saying unneccesary posts will be excised, then why leave in the post that says "only one initial post allowed."

Essentially you can argue away to your hearts content in this version despite the "initial post" part.

Im fairly sure this is due to me mis-reading the proposal (2am here) but just to be sure, do i have a point?

[Garbarsardar]

Here's something i don't understand.

If you take out the part saying unneccesary posts will be excised, then why leave in the post that says "only one initial post allowed."

Essentially you can argue away to your hearts content in this version despite the "initial post" part.

Im fairly sure this is due to me mis-reading the proposal (2am here) but just to be sure, do i have a point?

You are quite awake, indeed. I amended again. My intention is for the rules to be the more non-restrictive as possible.

You could argue to your heart's content but for the "discretion" of the Judges. At the same time the Judges will be held accountable by means of this

[rez]

Yes this all makes sense now. Support!

[The Walrus]

Supported...still

[Erich von Manstein]

Support!

[Scorch]

Supported, as in, I support the new version.

[kshcshbash]

Renewed Support

[Hotspur]

Athletic support

[the Black Prince]

grounds standing? A Parliamentary Decision asks or directs the Staff officers to act in a certain way, or undertake a particular activity, in such areas of staff officers concerns that they have chosen to delegate. The tribunal is a body of the curia, not a body of the staff, and not therefore subject to a decision.

Any rules governing how the tribunal operate must surely be created either by the judges themselves, in the same manner in which the modding registrar or the CB self govern, or by incorporating them into the constitution by amending the relevant section, as has been previously suggested

[Scorch]

grounds standing? A Parliamentary Decision asks or directs the Staff officers to act in a certain way, or undertake a particular activity, in such areas of staff officers concerns that they have chosen to delegate. The tribunal is a body of the curia, not a body of the staff, and not therefore subject to a decision.

Any rules governing how the tribunal operate must surely be created either by the judges themselves, in the same manner in which the modding registrar or the CB self govern, or by incorporating them into the constitution by amending the relevant section, as has been previously suggested

To be honest, I don't think you can keep dodging this issue like you do. We need some rules set down in the running of the tribunal enacted by the Curia, not the judges - who, as they change, will inevitably have different ideas on how it should run, and thus different rules.