Trials will be deleted and considered call-out threads, resulting in a mod response commensurate with any other call out thread.
The purpose of a trial is to put the user on trial--ergo, to put their actions and character through the ringer.
What do you mean by putting them through the ringer, because that doesn't sound so bad. It definitely sounds like a more professional way to talk about someone and consider both sides in a well articulated argumentative format, than what's already being done in other threads publicly. Also the bearing of this seems to have no consequence as you obviously aren't forced to act on whatever the outcome is, seeing as it is a mere experiment. Is there any way to convince you to allow him to hold something like this, or have you already made up your mind that any thread he makes will be instantly deleted regarding the trial?The purpose of a trial is to put the user on trial--ergo, to put their actions and character through the ringer.
I like Rash but I just don't think there's any doubt that what he said this time violated the CoC. I mean, what would be the point? Seems like it would be a lot of sound and thunder just to reach the same outcome.
All this is to say I agree with the idea, but not because I have some agenda to object the ban, which is what I am hoping Logical Master doesn't have with this either.
If bsh's answer is absolutely going to be a "no" we can still do a mock trial with this and just make up a user, or use an old user from Debate.org that is currently no longer active on this site (like YYW, or royalpaladin, or something).
Only change I would recommend is that the Jury's decisions final decision should maybe be made in private to the judge if it comes to Jury vote. Have them discuss all the different facets, but when it comes down to the actual vote, have them submit it privately so it takes away the worry that someone was pressured into a decision.
I sign up as jury member.
I volunteer for Defense Attorney
People were a bit salty, but the exact opposite of a mob mentality happened. If anything, the mob mentality was dispelled by the trial system.
We could do it on edeb8 or DDO. I would prefer it if the first trial was not for RM. It should be a volunteer.
I volunteer to keep starting the rm trial here until I get banned, and then the real trial can be about my ban off-site. Then you get to argue for the trial system.
Your ideal of getting banned is actually good. I think on that note you can take the lead on setting up a trial for RM. I think if you substitute some words it could pass. Like call RM "frog" and base the trial off of his actions, but just make them a caricature of his actions or something as a test. It could still get you banned because bsh1 is a (censored by Castin), but it could work
It's the debating about debating about debating that annoys me!
How would you address the concern that this would turn every ban into a drawn-out drama circus?
Anyone who complains about a ban (or about a non-ban) gets banned.How would you address the concern that this would turn every ban into a drawn-out drama circus?
How would you address the concern that this would turn every ban into a drawn-out drama circus?From what I can tell on DART thusfar, literally every ban is already a drawn-out drama circus. Hell, I wouldn't have even started this thread if not for the litany of threads about RM on the first two pages. My impression was that the mods were not concerned with drama circuses per se, though that too could be addressed by simply plugging trials into a separate sub-forum akin to the other categories (Arts, games, science, politics, religion, etc) and keeping the main page free and clear of "drama." Out of sight out of mind if you will! Though the only assured way to avoid a drama circus is not to ban anybody. Beyond that, moderate the thread like you would any other!
