Eureka an Idea! or not

[IDefy]

9 members who are active like 14 ppd and who arent mods and are sane... good luck

i think the 9 jury members should change every so often or get impeached if the general public thinks a decision was unfair.

 

[Maverick]

Reading the post from Swooper I finally realized what made me hold back from agreeing this suggestion. We, the mods are already the Jury forum. Before anything else I would like to clear something up. Would this 9 people have the ability to ban members? I'll post the rest of my messed up thoughts later. Please answer my question Dark Blade.

 

[bamthedoc]

OH BAKA!! I hit yes...

I meant no...

The main reason I disagree with this is that, as stated before, people don't know what goes on in the Battle Staff Area. As brought up by Swooper, we have an evidence locker that has sensitive material in it. There are some temp bans that are easy decisions to make. For example: a severe compromise of the rules, but not serious enough for perm/IP ban. There are several examples of this. Besides, most people get a lot of warnings before the question of ban is even brought up. After x number of warnings, based on offense, a temp ban is brought up.

As Swooper said, we discuss a lot even in "open and close" cases. We don't take things lightly here, and we certainly hate to overlook things. That's why all mods (that I know of) have AIM and/or Messenger. We also look at our PMs constantly. We also enjoy the occasional "Report" in our emails.

Now, offenses severeness can vary from board to board. The RPR is not quite as serious as the other boards. A warning from me, unless it's a sig/avi or FF warning, will not carry much weight. The problem with a jury is that it will be harder to express "weightiness" of offenses.

I don't know what the biggest problem would be, however. It is a difficult plan to impliment, let alone pull off.

 

[AxL]

I also would like to share a few of my PM's to members about sigs. They have a chance to take of their sig before they get a "Signature Ban"

AxL wrote on 07-*-2003 10:19 PM:
Hello ******

Your sig is over the file size limit. The limit is 30kb while yours is roughly 41kb. So if you would change it or lowered it, it would be appreciated.

Thanks

- AxL

another one

AxL wrote on 07-*-2003 01:28 AM:
Hello ****

I would just like to let you know that your sig is way over the limits. The limits are 550x200 and maximum file size of 30kb. While yours is 350x444 with a file size of 50kb. You have (1) day to lower it. If you do not in this time, you will have it removed for you and have a pink bunney put there for you.

Thanks

- AxL

Its the same with punishments. Users get so much time to change or warnings before they are actully given a consequence. Its not like we have black and white rules.

 

[Renzokuken]

This is only a Forum, not a country. This is a horrible idea. There are enough moderators/admins to have a say in each idea, let alone another 9 members to add to the haystack.

 

[Amantis]

Battleforums is meant to be a hobby, not a job.

- Amantis

 

[Wing Zero]

after so many purswaysive(<---DAMN MY ENGLISH) post i voted no staff people can handel it is there choice to ban or not not ours

 

[finalfantasynut]

i would like to be a jury member because i am fair. but also i think they should be a new groop elected each month. and you have to make sure there not corrupt. human nature makes this hard. but i belive to make this foarm a civilized and more nicer place then yes is the correct awnser. if you would like me to argure more of my points post here and ask me to. but until then i will let my mind sit untold.

 

[TheNamelessYam]

AxL are you trying to say that every mature/smart person in the forum is already a mod or a part of the staff? every mod except like savage said no because they get a say about what happens. but what about everyone else? we hardly get any say on bans and other actions decided by the staff.

Originally posted by Amantis
Battleforums is meant to be a hobby, not a job.

- Amantis

that doesnt relate to anything said in this thread

 

[AxL]

AxL are you trying to say that every mature/smart person in the forum is already a mod or a part of the staff? every mod except like savage said no because they get a say about what happens. but what about everyone else? we hardly get any say on bans and other actions decided by the staff.

Im saying that its going to be pretty damn hard to come up with 9 of them.

 

[Vice_Vex]

Why should You get says on bans? If you followed the rules, there wouldn't be bans would there?

 

[finalfantasynut]

wow ouch that hurts i belive if you check in the Arcane Sanctuary you can find more than 9 but of course i am willing to admit i am wrong if needed so prove me wrong

 

[bamthedoc]

From what I've seen, non-mods make up about... 4-5 members in the AS... Therefore, you could name 4-5 from the AS. I wouldn't want to try naming them, however.

Honestly, many memebers don't realize what we do/put up with. Banning is not just a simple process. A jury would likely drag down forum morale. Why? Decisions would take, on average, months. It requires too much promise, and I doubt we could pull it off (especially with our member numbers).

 

[Amantis]

I'm not saying that I'm totally against this idea. If this were a smaller forum, it might work.

If you had behaved yourselves properly in the first place, we would never have come up with the judicator idea and we would have been happy about that.

As to my previous post, the point is that we're not in a country or setting up some kind of 'mass destruction'. You're meant to enjoy yourself here by will rather than by force.

- Amantis

 

[Maverick]

Yes Amantis is right for me. If only those banned people didn't break any rules no one would've been banned. And you can say something about the banning system. All you need is to click those pm buttons and there you go. And I think it's not necessary for you to say anything about people who are banned because the Staff doesn't ban immediately those peeps. They undergo deep investigation. I think those who object to the decision are just those who has less information of what that banned person has done.