Administrative Tribunal Commentary Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
Kita said:
If he dislikes the man behind the curtain, there are other places that have different men behind the curtain.

I don't think Ford or Squish or anyone else is going to step down any time soon, so if they are his problem his problem will never be solved.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Correct, but I assume the community is what keeps him here. The administration is but one aspect of that.
 
Turing Decidable said:
Correct, but I assume the community is what keeps him here. The administration is but one aspect of that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's the thing, right?

If you stick to the rules, don't be a dick, and be nice to people...

...you will never have trouble with the staff.

And thus some people may dislike or disagree with our administration and can still be a decent, productive member of our community.

And that's perfectly okay.
 
*that moment when you come to the thread were people were cracking jokes, and them you feel the change on the air*

I came to SV because of ND and ANE, stayed because i found the Evangelion fanfic Renaissance.

Stayed because i can crack jokes and no one will look wrong at me hehehehehehehe.

Until i begin making jokes of whon much of people killed in my neighborhood in the same day... hehehehe

EDIT: Typos
 
Last edited:
Malevolo said:
*that moment when you come to the thread were people were cracking jokes, and them you feel the change on the air*

I came to SV because of ND and ANE, stayed because i found the Evangelion fanfic Renaissance.

Stayed because i can crack jokes and no one will look wrong at me hehehehehehehe.

Until i begin making jokes of whon much of people killed in my neighborhood in the same day... hehehehe

EDIT: Typos
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/threads/sv-officially-unofficial-welcome-thread.15881/

I think your post better belongs in here.
 
It is unlikely we will leave, unless someone buys our company for ten million dollars.

Anyway we are resigned to not being liked by everyone, but you don't need to like us to be welcomed here. By all means, come on by.
 
Ford Prefect said:
It is unlikely we will leave, unless someone buys our company for ten million dollars.

Anyway we are resigned to not being liked by everyone, but you don't need to like us to be welcomed here. By all means, come on by.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Way I see it, you don't need to like other posters or the administration. You don't even need to respect them. But you need to respect the forum; the amalgamation of the rules and socializing we all partake in.
 
Fernandel said:
I expect an uptick in the man's waifuposting once he leaves the White House. Big fan of KanColle, apparently.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
... He's enough of a nerd that I have to ask if you're serious.

... Related to previous opinions, does anyone else generally like rooting for the people placing appeals until you find out they've done something (you consider) ball bustingly stupid or just Picard worthy?

I think my favorite thing is to root for the advocates. Well.... advocate, at this point. Go team?
 
Ramenth said:
It's one part coincidence one part systemic slowness.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, not just.

NormalSightMan said:
Actually, that reminds me: public tribunals seem to come in short bursts followed by a longer period of silence. Is there a procedural reason for that or is it just coincidence?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sepetember was busy because tribunal appeals are on hold during the august election.

November was busy as hell because the US election happened.

Generally speaking, tribunal appeals happen whenever someone appeals a magistrate appeal and a simple majority of the CC decides that yes, the appeal has merit and should be heard. There are exceptions, such as when the staff brings a Tribunal to us (which, naturally, we have to look at).

Overall, they appear to come in burst because it's either September, a big IRL event happened (large referenda, elections or midterm finals) or just honest coincidence.
 
Ford Prefect said:
It is unlikely we will leave, unless someone buys our company for ten million dollars.

Anyway we are resigned to not being liked by everyone, but you don't need to like us to be welcomed here. By all means, come on by.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ten million dollars is a touch steep.

Can I convince you to take five dollars for it instead?

*Does not know how to haggle*
 
Whatmesage said:
... Related to previous opinions, does anyone else generally like rooting for the people placing appeals until you find out they've done something (you consider) ball bustingly stupid or just Picard worthy?

I think my favorite thing is to root for the advocates. Well.... advocate, at this point. Go team?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Some users are stupid, other's really stupid, and there's the ones who fake being stupid (bad-faith). Sometimes the Stupid are the ones who read the rules but try to circumvent or loophole it thinking they are positive laws but in fact they are common law or principiological laws, they are administered based on the "must be" of law, not the "cold letter" of the law, as some user's try to argue on their appeals. No mercy for this ones, and they deserve doom.

The Really Stupid, are the ones who read the laws, but didn't understand but think they understood. This ones deserve mercy, and I root for them on their appeals, because people aren't guilty of being Really stupid.

Them comes the Bad-Faith ones, who their first argument is try to demoralize the tribunal and the process, them try to use the "right of the enemy" as a defense saying they are being victims of that doctrine, and when everything fails, they throw shit on the fan trying to tarnish the reputation of the tribunal and administration, as a their last alea jacta est, to see if they can leave with at least a minor victory. No Mercy for them.


About the advocates, what a hellish job they make trying to defend this three types, seriously, sometimes they salvage some user that were doomed from the moment they got on the tribunal
 
Oh hey, I see there's some tribunal's that came down the line... and I'm almost a week late to the party....
Time to review the tribunals, well lets see what...
Ratings? Seriously?
I cannot roll my eyes hard enough to express the amount of FFS I have towards the idea of infracting people for ratings.
At least in these cases. I can see infractions given for "rating funny a suicide note", and rating stalking, where you just rate one person's posts, or all of an opposing viewpoints posts. One offs though? I'd much rather a group of people express their dissatisfaction, displeasure, or other disgruntlement regarding an individual post by clicking the laugh button than by all of them writing a polite diatribe about how the other poster is wrong. Also, I think ratings should never be infracted in a story thread where the ratings are on the story itself. Respectfully, while someone may be offended if I view their "Gunz and Violence" story as "Hugs", or their "Serious Drama" as "Funny", we should all be able to agree that different people are affected differently by stories, and that quite frankly when you're posting stories on an internet forum that allows for replies, you accept that you're going to receive varied critiques (even if they may be exceedingly hard to interpret).

I definitely support a "Respectfully Disagree" button for CA (though as I mostly never roll through CA, I'll probably not use it... where I roll it's easier to just ignore the individuals posting exceedingly low effort one line crossover :turian:ideas:turian: in fan-fiction threads than to rating's button them)

Also, kinda disappointed in the reaction of certain councilors to Ars Poetica's "last minute evidence". If you looked at the thread yourselves, you may have seen that four posts past Havoc's infraction, Jackie had in fact addressed that she'd discussed the funny ratings with Ars behind the scenes, and you could have proactively asked about that.

Further,
Fernandel said:
You've had this in your possession for days, you could have reasonably expected that we would consider this relevant as a piece of evidence, you could have communicated this to us at any time since your appeal at various instances in this process, and you've withheld it from us. Until the very last moment, even, when the Tribunal is entering its last twenty-four hours of deliberation.

I refuse to accept this. You haven't approached this Tribunal process in good faith, and I will not reward you for it.

I worked for six hours on my day off for this Tribunal. As far as I am concerned, the matter is closed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Why would you expect he'd bring this forwards? His appeal had already been granted and the infraction overturned, there was no reason to bring forward additional evidence to clear himself until after some of the councilors decided to start to vote to uphold the original infraction. His presence in the proceedings up until then was for the sake of arguing for or against the overall infractability of ratings, not the outcome of his own specific case.

While I appreciate the six hours you spent working on that, I don't appreciate your then saying "whoops, more evidence, well, fuck that." That's exceedingly disappointing.

Edit: I almost forgot. @chibipoe, if you don't feel up to working a case at all, there is always the option of abstaining. Or... just not showing up. Maybe you really did feel that everyone deserved to be infracted, but without providing any discussion... kinda plz no. Love your stories, but really don't think the councilor position's quite a good fit that way.

On the whole, I think this one should have ended with overturning them all and getting on with your respective days, and just people not getting bent out of shape over a little icon on their post.
Well, that one wasn't so bad... what's the next case.
-_-
Dear Foamy. Thank you for removing the thread preemptively so I did not go and read it. Thank you. John Smith's was bad enough. In related news, my heart goes out to the family of @Private Lee O'Malley, whom we can only assume has since committed suicide via alcohol poisoning. Thanks for taking one for the team o7. (And anyone else who actually read the entire thing.)
Completely agree with all of O'Malley's conclusions, most especially the one where Smokey the Bear is pointing at all of us, and crying, saying "SV Depends on You". (Also, thanks for the link to Aleph's essay, hadn't seen that before, and I always like good writing advice)
Ok, on to the final appeal.
...I have absolutely no idea what is going on here, but good job everyone?
More shoutouts to O'Malley, for being willing to hear Rufus out, even though Rufus pretty clearly DNGAF and wanted to just go back home to SB or something.
 
Last edited:
Jobastion said:
and just people not getting bent out of shape over a little icon on their post.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm sorry but this is grossly reductive logic. I could say this for example:

"People should just not get bent out of shape over a series of small runes in a particular arrangement." IE: Words.

Like words, the ratings and icons have meaning. Icon, by definition, imparts meaning. People that really want to will look for any way to berate or troll others, especially in an attempt to do so in a manner that tries to avoid violating rules against such behavior. This has already been demonstrated on SV (not just within this specific set of tribunal cases.) Making a blanket statement that no ratings should ever be eligible for infraction would give carte blanche for anyone to abuse it in such a manner.
 
Reader mode
7,009 more messages…
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top