Administrative Tribunal Commentary Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
The Laurent said:
I'm not particularly sure what you're supposed to do when the defendant refuses to show up... and you still reduce the sentence.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Get rid of them without making a tribunal out of it - if they're a lurker like Xon claims they are that without fail (his words) racks up 1-2 warnings in every bout of activity that the user has had, he has no reason to be brought to the forefront and then open a commentary thread on it. I understand the appeal behind making it all official and shiny but it seems like an extra step being taken purely because;

This should be my last tribunal resolution with the current council as we complete this term, so I would to thank them all for their assistance through the year and wish those eligible for and seeking a second term luck in the upcoming election.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
- Ford Prefect

Given the guy's offending post was in March it really just feels like the issue was raised now (the actual post dates to June 13) purely for some sort of politics. I feel it was a show trial in the most literal of definition.
 
Kerensky said:
Get rid of them without making a tribunal out of it - if they're a lurker like Xon claims they are that without fail (his words) racks up 1-2 warnings in every bout of activity that the user has had, he has no reason to be brought to the forefront and then open a commentary thread on it. I understand the appeal behind making it all official and shiny but it seems like an extra step being taken purely because;

- Ford Prefect

Given the guy's offending post was in March it really just feels like the issue was raised now (the actual post dates to June 13) purely for some sort of politics. I feel it was a show trial in the most literal of definition.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I have a feeling about how the user-base would react to, "Oh, if the case is obvious just get rid of them without talking about it."

And, uh.

(Also, considering they actually reduced the sentence on debating it, it clearly wasn't quite as open-shut as it seemed.)
 
Kerensky said:
Get rid of them without making a tribunal out of it - if they're a lurker like Xon claims they are that without fail (his words) racks up 1-2 warnings in every bout of activity that the user has had, he has no reason to be brought to the forefront and then open a commentary thread on it. I understand the appeal behind making it all official and shiny but it seems like an extra step being taken purely because;
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You do realize Xon was explaining why the infraction system scales as it does, rather than anything directly related to VolantRedX who, one can check and see, has over twenty thousand posts, which even distributed over five~ years is an average of something like 10 per day, yes?
 
Oshha said:
I believe it is that all perma bans have tribunals, but they only go public if the subject of the tribunal requests it be made public.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
From The Rules, we have:
The rules of SV said:
After the seven days have passed, the Administrator will then make a decision about these concerns, issue a final statement, and, unless a compelling interest motivates privacy, make the Tribunal public.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
which, from the structure of the document, appears to apply to all tribunals.
 
The rules actually state that we only publish tribunals where the subject participates, so in normal circumstances i wouldn't have published this tribunal at all. However, given that Volant was partially successful and given that there was a compelling reason to publish (to highlight some of the thoughts councilors had regarding infractions in N&P vs elsewhere), I exercised the discretion allowed for in the rules to publish it publicly.
 
Was Volant suspended during the tribunal? If so I can totally understand not responding. If you can't use the forum why would you even log in? If I were suspended I would probably not log in either and would therefore never see that I was up for a permaban tribunal.
 
Axslashel said:
Was Volant suspended during the tribunal? If so I can totally understand not responding. If you can't use the forum why would you even log in? If I were suspended I would probably not log in either and would therefore never see that I was up for a permaban tribunal.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You can speak in administrative forums even if you're suspended.
 
Godwinson said:
About the only argument I could see to the effect of giving them longer is if they hadn't logged in since before the "Please show up for your tribunal" message was sent. If they had no idea that they were being tried and needed to present a defense or a request for a delay. Everything else, yeah, it takes two minutes to bang out a "I'm working 112 hours this week, can I get to this next week?" message.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Nyvis said:
Yeah that's basically the only case I'm worried about too.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If someone hasn't been online at all since being infracted, they can ask for a retroactive extension (though I obviously can't promise what the outcome would be in every case). The report system indicates when an infraction is acknowledged, which generally must be done before using the forum again, and if there's a substantial length of time between issuance and acknowledgement that will help indicate if someone had no opportunity to appeal in the normal timeframe.
 
Last edited:
Eldy said:
If someone hasn't been online at all since being infracted, they can ask for a retroactive extension (though I obviously can't promise what the outcome would be in every case). The report system indicates when an infraction is acknowledged, which generally must be done before using the forum again, and if there's a substantial length of time between issuance and acknowledgement that will help indicate if someone had no opportunity to appeal in the normal timeframe.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I figured that there was something in place to cover that obvious eventuality, even if just "the staff are not robots and can make judgement calls on this topic".
 
Eldy said:
If someone hasn't been online at all since being infracted, they can ask for a retroactive extension (though I obviously can't promise what the outcome would be in every case). The report system indicates when an infraction is acknowledged, which generally must be done before using the forum again, and if there's a substantial length of time between issuance and acknowledgement that will help indicate if someone had no opportunity to appeal in the normal timeframe.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Ah, neat, makes sense, thanks for the information.
 
Ford Prefect said:
Three days is plenty of time to defend yourself for pretty much anything that might reasonably happen on an internet forum. If a person can't get a statement together in three days, then they can at least get in contact to say they can't and they need some more time. If they can't do that then they can live with their infraction.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Is there any way to check easily whether, statistically, infractions that are handed on Friday are appealed significantly more often than infractions that are handed on Monday?

I think some of the psychological aspects are perhaps being a bit underappreciated here. "Can at least get in contact to say they can't and they need some more time". Taking myself as an example, I don't think I'd be willing to ask for an extension -- I'd either want to file the appeal on time or not at all, if I were to file it myself. Requesting an extension might seem a minor inconvenience perhaps, but those always play their role. It's a minor *psychological toll*, different people measure these differently.

And I might spend 2 of the 3 days, before I even decide whether I want to bother appealing or not.

If extensions are currently generally granted by default anyway, upon request, it'd seem to me better if the time limit was made to be 7 days from the start (and extensions beyond that instead becoming a rarity), to guarantee an intervening weekend regardless of what day of the week the infraction was handed down.
 
Well, I have to admit "DO IT, FUCKERS" is certainly a new approach to the traditional "this tribunal/website is biased against me/believes I am engaged in wrongthink" defense.

Also holy shit about that 200 point infraction. Did Rule 1 bilging you not exist then?
 
Is there really anything to even say? Doc only came over here when he was banned on SB, and the only thing he ever did was troll transparently.

This sort of thing was basically inevitable if he didn't shape up, and since he never showed any sign of doing so, well... was gonna happen sooner or later.
 
200 points in one post what the fuck. That's some kind of long track speed skating my dude.

Honestly the Iran thread being his downfall is...maybe fitting I guess.
 
Night said:
Well, I have to admit "DO IT, FUCKERS" is certainly a new approach to the traditional "this tribunal/website is biased against me/believes I am engaged in wrongthink" defense.

Also holy shit about that 200 point infraction. Did Rule 1 bilging you not exist then?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It occurred back in 2015; many of our processes, including the automatic ping for a review, weren't in place at the time or have been changed and tightened.
 
Reader mode
1,634 more messages…
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top