The following information should be taken to heart before reading this post or this thread:
I would like to make it clear that this is an idea, a proposal. Possibly a tentative plan. This is not a policy, it is not set in stone, and it isn't the final blueprint. It may be scrapped for something better.
Please keep this in the forefront of your mind as you read the following. Thank you.
======
Ladies and gentlemen, as part of the recent Summit, a suggestion was brought up. This suggestion has been brought up many times throughout the last few months, and in many cases was not received as well as it was made. We have made an attempt to redraft said suggestion to be acceptable for all involved.
We are attempting to make a Watchdog group. A tribunal, the objective of which would be to solve accusations of corruption among the staff and, should issues escalate, be responsible for forcibly removing staff from office. The following is the current suggestion.
Please remember that the intention of this thread is for alterations to this plan and for public opinion. Be honest and polite, bring your ideas forwards. Let's make this something to make our beloved site better.
------
The "Tribunal" refers to 10 individuals, to be selected from the site at large, whose general purpose will be to solve accusations of corruption among the staff and to, if needed, resolve such accusations including, but not limited to, removing staff from office. The Tribunal will be in addition to the Staff's own methods of solving such issues, not in place of.
Of the 10 individuals that make up the candidate pool, 5 will be hand-picked by the Staff. These individuals will be nominated by the Staff and decided upon by majority vote through the same. These individuals will embody the Staff's view on the most objective users the Staff knows, those able to decide what is best for the site at large.
The remaining 5 individuals will be decided by the public, to be decided by thread and by poll in the Community Issues forum. The userbase of MTGSalvation will decide who their representatives shall be, and what qualities they think are best served in such a position. The Staff shall make no attempt to force these decisions in any such way.
Should the Staff and the Public decide to use the same individual, a simple use of the [dice] command will be used to decide which list will use that individual. The other group will return to replace their decision.
Upon selection, the 10 individuals will become the Tribunal Candidates. Any individual may abstain from their position at any time. The Staff or the Public will then replace their candidate as need be.
Whenever an accusation is made in Community Issues of staff corruption, or should a decision made by the Staff or any representative thereof be decided to be in error to the point of needing a reprimand, and should the community decide that the Tribunal is needed, the Tribunal shall be convened.
The Tribunal itself will, in any situation, be comprised of three individuals. One shall be from the Staff-selected pool. One shall be from the Public-selected pool. The final individual will be one of the Admins or, should no admin be available to commit their duty due to time constraints, or unable to fulfill their duty due to conflict of interest, the selection shall be made from the Global Moderators instead.
The selection of the Tribunal shall be on a volunteer basis, but only from the specific 10 candidates and eligible Admins/Global Moderators.
These three shall decide the solution to the established problem. The discussion shall be held in a subforum of Community Issues with read-only access to all members of MTGSalvation, but posting access restricted only to the Tribunal members.
The Staff and Public representatives will be tasked to the deliberation of the accused staff member and/or decision. The Admin/Global Moderator, in addition to this duty, will also be tasked with providing evidence for and against the accusation that is found in the Administrator, Global Moderator, and Moderator Lounges, as well as any portion of the MTGSalvation website that cannot normally be accessed by any given member of the Website.
Should the information in question be confidential information, or for any reason be considered private information, the Staff reserves the right to distribute the evidence to the Representatives by means of Private Message or e-mail instead of displaying them in the Tribunal subforum.
The Tribunal, after deliberation, shall vote on the accusation, deciding if it is in error or if the accusation is to be upheld. A simple majority shall suffice to decide in either direction. If any of the three abstain for the vote, they shall be replaced from their given pool by another volunteer. A decision of 'error' shall result in no punitive action on the staff member or action. A decision to uphold the accusation will result in further discussion on the punitive action towards the staff member.
The Admins reserve the right to take the punitive action discussion into their own hands in the Admin Lounge, to be revealed to the public after action has been decided, at the request of the affected staff member.
Should the decision of 'error' be found in regards to a staff action, the Admin on the Tribunal shall then head a discussion among the Staff on a correction to that action, and the decision shall be revealed publicly.
-------
Questions and comments are welcome to this new proposed policy. We want to make sure that we can come up with a fair and just way to handle these complaints so that we never again have to deal with the level of drama we have dealt with over the past month.
A poll will be included among this thread for quick reference on what the community thoughts are. Please, in addition to voting, give your reasons in the thread.
This particular point wasn't covered in any great detail in the chat - but I think the tribunal's jurisidiction should be envisioned as more expansive than only cases of corruption/abuse of power, but to problematic staff generally. Agree/disagree?
Edit: I thought some talking points might be in order, Az. The public has questioned decisions more than once, and this would help in order to fix such problems.
As per my comment in the initial thread attempt, I'd like to see the tribunal's jurisdiction as more expansive than corruption/abuse of power, but to extend to problematic staff generally.
More comments on revamping the structure, later. EDIT: See the following.
Just for the sake of c;earing up some wording that caught me up...
Watchdog- 10 members: 5 public chosen and 5 staff chosen
Tribunal- 3 members: 1 Staff chosen, 1 public chosen and one Admin/ Global (if time constraints hamper all the admins or conflict of interest)
As per my comment in the initial thread attempt, I'd like to see the tribunal's jurisdiction as more expansive than corruption/abuse of power, but to extend to problematic staff generally.
More comments on revamping the structure, later. EDIT: Nath'd.
In what other ways could staff be problematic outside corruption or abusing mod abilities and privileges that would require outside interference? Do you mean like large amounts of unannounced time away from the site, things like that?
About Frox: for nearly 10 years, Frox has been helping women look good and feel great in easy-fit, mix-and-match, and work-to-weekend with just a few pieces by helping them make the right choices when it comes to clothing and accessories.
Just for the sake of c;earing up some wording that caught me up...
Watchdog- 10 members: 5 public chosen and 5 staff chosen
Tribunal- 3 members: 1 Staff chosen, 1 public chosen and one Admin/ Global (if time constraints hamper all the admins or conflict of interest)
Is that a correct?
More or less, yes.
Basically, my proposal is that we've got two pools of people.
Staff-Chosen are those that we choose. Not necessarily that agree with thus, but the exceptional people we feel have the best interests of the site at heart.
The Public chosen are those that the Public feels are exceptional, those that have the Public's best interests at heart.
These are not necessarily the same thing. Usually they are, but there are times that they disagree.
This division ensures that neither side can call foul on the people in the Tribunal. There will always be a chosen representative that both sides were able to make.
And these 10 will be the pool. That way we always have SOMEONE we can ask to weigh in, and it needn't always be the same person. This also means that if someone feels they have a conflict of interest, they can stay out.
I agree with that change and tried to word it as such. If you give me a wording change, I'll get it in there.
A tribunal, the objective of which would be to solve accusations of corruption among the staff and, should issues escalate, be responsible for forcibly removing staff from office.
I would change to:
"A tribunal, charged with the responsibility of reviewing userbase complaints against staff members, and when necessary, recommending remedial actions, or requiring removal from the staff."
Nailing down the jurisdiction more precisely than that may take some time, if that's viewed as overly expansive. I'd rather be more expansive than not, however.
I think Hannes needs to be involved in this matter and a wee bit more in his site.
I think that corruption refers to use, or misuse, of power for undue personal gain. If anyone's gaining something of any significant worth, I'd be more concerned about conflicts of interest and the ethics of that user and the site at large.
The site has pretty glaring problems not (only) with staff but users, staff and non-staff, in general and, from that, the site's culture.
Nai, I don't know when you became an administrator but I think it's recent enough to warrant a congratulations. Also, I found the OP unreasonably difficult to follow for some reason. The heart is in the right place, though, I suppose.
1. I think the role should be a bit broader. For example, if the staff is planning to make a potentially controversial change to the site (such as closing a subforum), they should convene the tribunal in an advisory role. This has the benefit to the staff of providing some cover for their action (assuming the tribunal agrees).
2. Instead of dice rolling in case of overlap, just have the staff choose their members first.
3. Is the position for life (or until resignation)? Perhaps the selection process should happen again after a certain amount of time.
4. I think members should get read-only access to the whole site. This avoids the possibility of a staff member not disclosing some important detail. Besides — if you can't trust them with that information, why are you trusting them with something as important as deciding the fate of mods?
5. It's kinda obvious, but...current mods are ineligible to be on the Tribunal, right?
6. I think it would be better to go with 5 members instead of 3. And/or reconvene with a greater number of members if the vote is not unanimous.
4. I think members should get read-only access to the whole site. This avoids the possibility of a staff member not disclosing some important detail. Besides — if you can't trust them with that information, why are you trusting them with something as important as deciding the fate of mods?
This is one of my biggest concerns. fnord's point is a good one, but I really don't like the idea of non-mods getting to read stuff in the mod lounge.
EDIT: Not to mention this whole idea seems really complicated and unnecessary, IMO.
A tribunal, the objective of which would be to solve accusations of corruption among the staff and, should issues escalate, be responsible for forcibly removing staff from office.
I would change to:
"A tribunal, charged with the responsibility of reviewing userbase complaints against staff members, and when necessary, recommending remedial actions, or requiring removal from the staff."
Nailing down the jurisdiction more precisely than that may take some time, if that's viewed as overly expansive. I'd rather be more expansive than not, however.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Making the change.
I think Hannes needs to be involved in this matter and a wee bit more in his site.
I think that corruption refers to use, or misuse, of power for undue personal gain. If anyone's gaining something of any significant worth, I'd be more concerned about conflicts of interest and the ethics of that user and the site at large.
The site has pretty glaring problems not (only) with staff but users, staff and non-staff, in general and, from that, the site's culture.
And that's exactly what this is for. Fixing issues of that nature.
Nai, I don't know when you became an administrator but I think it's recent enough to warrant a congratulations.
Yesterday, thanks for the warm thoughts.
Also, I found the OP unreasonably difficult to follow for some reason. The heart is in the right place, though, I suppose.
I intended to spell things out as straightforwards as I possibly could, which meant going a little more legalspeak on it. Terms of Use-type thing. I just didn't want loose language in there.
1. I think the role should be a bit broader. For example, if the staff is planning to make a potentially controversial change to the site (such as closing a subforum), they should convene the tribunal in an advisory role. This has the benefit to the staff of providing some cover for their action (assuming the tribunal agrees).
In some ways I agree. But in many cases, I really don't. This would severely hamper the staff in being able to do our jobs, and would also slow us down. We're already very slow, as we discuss everything to the point of pain.
2. Instead of dice rolling in case of overlap, just have the staff choose their members first.
I'm kind of willing on this, but I want to avoid the problem of someone claiming we get any sort of preferential treatment. I'd rather the Userbase get auto-pick than us.
3. Is the position for life (or until resignation)? Perhaps the selection process should happen again after a certain amount of time.
I agree with limiting their term length, but I wouldn't want to limit how many terms they can sit.
4. I think members should get read-only access to the whole site. This avoids the possibility of a staff member not disclosing some important detail. Besides — if you can't trust them with that information, why are you trusting them with something as important as deciding the fate of mods?
I disagree in the strongest possible terms. Giving everyone read-only access to places such as the Admin Lounge, for example, would not be a good idea.
These places are private so that the moderators, admins, and others can make decisions without having to worry about others looking over their shoulders. They are confidential so people can speak anonymously. And so we can also hash out possibly controversial ideas without having to worry about public backlash before we even do anything.
5. It's kinda obvious, but...current mods are ineligible to be on the Tribunal, right?
Good question. Let's discuss it.
6. I think it would be better to go with 5 members instead of 3. And/or reconvene with a greater number of members if the vote is not unanimous.
I agree with the second half. 3 is usually good for a tribunal. That's what 'tri' means in the first place.
It's nice you guys are giving a lot of room to allow for users to voice their opinions, and are being very open about things. However, and I know this is going to make me unpopular amongst some, but you guys are in charge of this site, and to an average user, like me, things seem fine. Nothing needs to be changed on the administration side. This is one of the most well moderated sites on the web, the community thrives, and there is a lot of good discussion on the site. There are a lot of smart people here. This is a great community to be a part of.*
Basically, what I'm saying is the site is fine. And to me, this plan is a convoluted plan that is just going to cause more infighting with staff and vocal members of the community. You are in charge, you have the right to a lot of breathing room in how the site is handled.
I think the best way to solve a corruption issue (if one exists) is during the staff selection process. If corruption is a problem, then when staff is being selected it should become obvious that corruption is a possibility from the staff candidate and that candidate being denied a staff position. A neutral staff member should be quite obvious from post history alone.
Go ahead with this plan, I'm not going to say any more against it, but I just wanted to have my two cents as I'm not a very vocal member of the community on community issues but do have some feelings on the matter.
*Outside of a vocal sub-community that seems separated from the community at large, and is, to me, the source of all the sites infighting. That's all I'm saying in this footnote on this issue, and anywhere else on the site. I only mention it here as this tribunal thing seems directly related to this drama.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
What exactly is the criterion for selecting these users?
Whatever Criterion you like. Excellence is defined as the best, but you get to decide which best you prefer. Best public speaker? Best debater? Best idea-maker? Best PR representative? Loudest? Smallest infraction record? You get to choose.
[font=Times New Roman]Yeah, this isn't going to lead to a nasty, ugly drama bomb. /sarcasm
How do you envision a consensus on appropriate candidates will be developed? Not to turn this into another ugly thread, but I foresee an ugly fight where about half (or more) of the people are prolific Gutter members. Naturally, of course, there will be vocal people who are against this.
Surprisingly, the Gutter is a fairly small part of this website. They claim to have 200 members. The website has over 100,000. I can't help but feel that we'd have a wide variety of nominations and votes.
This being said, I somehow don't see the problem in having the Staff's biggest critics being in some part responsible for deciding if the Staff is making mistakes.
What if they're comprising essentially all of the public's positions, though?
How will that be decided? A straight majority vote on the part of the userbase? By mandatory or non-mandatory votes?
Harkius
The first paragraph is a very good question, and that's why this thread is here. So we can find out how to fix problems.
As for how they're decided? My original idea entailed a majority vote by the userbase, advertised through a site-wide announcement. I'm open to ideas though.
7. You should be more specific about the procedure by which the tribunal is invoked. Be careful to prevent spurious use of it as a means to troll the site.
8. I think Tribunal members should get to discuss the issue in private. Same rationale as with mod lounge privacy.
In some ways I agree. But in many cases, I really don't. This would severely hamper the staff in being able to do our jobs, and would also slow us down. We're already very slow, as we discuss everything to the point of pain.
It wouldn't be something you had to do. But if the staff felt like they could use outside advice, it would be there as a resource for them.
I'm kind of willing on this, but I want to avoid the problem of someone claiming we get any sort of preferential treatment. I'd rather the Userbase get auto-pick than us.
Preferential treatment goes to whichever side picks last. If there's an overlap of 1 person, for example, the side which picks first gets their top 5 in while the side which picks second gets their top 6 in.
I agree with limiting their term length, but I wouldn't want to limit how many terms they can sit.
Agreed.
I disagree in the strongest possible terms. Giving everyone read-only access to places such as the Admin Lounge, for example, would not be a good idea.
I'm talking about access to tribunal members, not all Salvation members.
I agree with the second half. 3 is usually good for a tribunal. That's what 'tri' means in the first place.
So...3 members at first, reconvene with 5 or 7 if decision isn't unanimous?
Tom, we can't make a good decision on what to do if we don't have all the information.
We need the evidence to make good decisions. But I, personally, don't think letting everyone see everything is the way to do so.
I'm sorry, but I really don't know what this post is getting at in regards to my post. Maybe It's just too late at night, but I'm confused by this post.
I disagree in the strongest possible terms. Giving everyone read-only access to places such as the Admin Lounge, for example, would not be a good idea.
These places are private so that the moderators, admins, and others can make decisions without having to worry about others looking over their shoulders. They are confidential so people can speak anonymously. And so we can also hash out possibly controversial ideas without having to worry about public backlash before we even do anything.
There is a lot of stuff that goes on in our lounges, and some of it should remain private. Having public-elected non-mods getting to see it just doesn't feel right.
Whatever Criterion you like. Excellence is defined as the best, but you get to decide which best you prefer. Best public speaker? Best debater? Best idea-maker? Best PR representative? Loudest? Smallest infraction record? You get to choose.
Ah I get it so it's kind of like an election?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Game: Bioshock: Infinite
Mabbz on MTGO | Demgrinds on Twitch & Twitter | Helpdesk
7. You should be more specific about the procedure by which the tribunal is invoked. Be careful to prevent spurious use of it as a means to troll the site.
I agree. I just can't think of a good way to invoke it.
I can only do so much! I had five minutes to come up with this much, you guys get to do some heavy lifting now.
8. I think Tribunal members should get to discuss the issue in private. Same rationale as with mod lounge privacy.
This is another one I'm on the fence on. Publicly means everyone can see HOW the result was reached. Privately means they don't have anyone over their shoulder.
I could live with having the discussion posted publicly after the fact.
It wouldn't be something you had to do. But if the staff felt like they could use outside advice, it would be there as a resource for them.
I thought you meant it was a mandatory thing. If it's a private thing? Awesome use of the Tribunal.
Preferential treatment goes to whichever side picks last. If there's an overlap of 1 person, for example, the side which picks first gets their top 5 in while the side which picks second gets their top 6 in.
You have a distinct point. Hrm...
I'm talking about access to tribunal members, not all Salvation members.
Ah! I misunderstood. I could probably agree with that.
So...3 members at first, reconvene with 5 or 7 if decision isn't unanimous?
I don't think a decision should HAVE to be unanimous. But I think we could use this as a clause for very important decisions.
As for how they're decided? My original idea entailed a majority vote by the userbase, advertised through a site-wide announcement. I'm open to ideas though.
Fun fact: You propose 5 community-chosen members. There are 5 major areas of the site (Magic Fundamental, The Game, Outside Magic, Creativity, Market Street).
There is a lot of stuff that goes on in our lounges, and some of it should remain private. Having public-elected non-mods getting to see it just doesn't feel right.
But having public-elected non-mods removing staff members — potentially even senior staff members — does feel right?
Fun fact: You propose 5 community-chosen members. There are 5 major areas of the site (Magic Fundamental, The Game, Outside Magic, Creativity, Market Street).
That was done by total accident, and I didn't see it until you said it.
Having been part of staff on a large website myself I can say there are parts of staff lounges that the public should never see.
I have no idea how the staff forums are handled here, but having the general chat forums for staff being visible to a public representative seems fine, and then having the "work-related" forums being closed to those representatives. Having them being moderated by global or whatnot so as to keep them 100% work related. This would keep staff drama in the public eye, while keeping staff work that needs to remain hidden away, just that, hidden. It does require some trust though that the mods won't hide away a forum. That's the thing though, if you can't get past the trust issue, you aren't getting anywhere no matter how this is approached.
I would like to make it clear that this is an idea, a proposal. Possibly a tentative plan. This is not a policy, it is not set in stone, and it isn't the final blueprint. It may be scrapped for something better.
Please keep this in the forefront of your mind as you read the following. Thank you.
======
Ladies and gentlemen, as part of the recent Summit, a suggestion was brought up. This suggestion has been brought up many times throughout the last few months, and in many cases was not received as well as it was made. We have made an attempt to redraft said suggestion to be acceptable for all involved.
We are attempting to make a Watchdog group. A tribunal, the objective of which would be to solve accusations of corruption among the staff and, should issues escalate, be responsible for forcibly removing staff from office. The following is the current suggestion.
Please remember that the intention of this thread is for alterations to this plan and for public opinion. Be honest and polite, bring your ideas forwards. Let's make this something to make our beloved site better.
------
The "Tribunal" refers to 10 individuals, to be selected from the site at large, whose general purpose will be to solve accusations of corruption among the staff and to, if needed, resolve such accusations including, but not limited to, removing staff from office. The Tribunal will be in addition to the Staff's own methods of solving such issues, not in place of.
Of the 10 individuals that make up the candidate pool, 5 will be hand-picked by the Staff. These individuals will be nominated by the Staff and decided upon by majority vote through the same. These individuals will embody the Staff's view on the most objective users the Staff knows, those able to decide what is best for the site at large.
The remaining 5 individuals will be decided by the public, to be decided by thread and by poll in the Community Issues forum. The userbase of MTGSalvation will decide who their representatives shall be, and what qualities they think are best served in such a position. The Staff shall make no attempt to force these decisions in any such way.
Should the Staff and the Public decide to use the same individual, a simple use of the [dice] command will be used to decide which list will use that individual. The other group will return to replace their decision.
Upon selection, the 10 individuals will become the Tribunal Candidates. Any individual may abstain from their position at any time. The Staff or the Public will then replace their candidate as need be.
Whenever an accusation is made in Community Issues of staff corruption, or should a decision made by the Staff or any representative thereof be decided to be in error to the point of needing a reprimand, and should the community decide that the Tribunal is needed, the Tribunal shall be convened.
The Tribunal itself will, in any situation, be comprised of three individuals. One shall be from the Staff-selected pool. One shall be from the Public-selected pool. The final individual will be one of the Admins or, should no admin be available to commit their duty due to time constraints, or unable to fulfill their duty due to conflict of interest, the selection shall be made from the Global Moderators instead.
The selection of the Tribunal shall be on a volunteer basis, but only from the specific 10 candidates and eligible Admins/Global Moderators.
These three shall decide the solution to the established problem. The discussion shall be held in a subforum of Community Issues with read-only access to all members of MTGSalvation, but posting access restricted only to the Tribunal members.
The Staff and Public representatives will be tasked to the deliberation of the accused staff member and/or decision. The Admin/Global Moderator, in addition to this duty, will also be tasked with providing evidence for and against the accusation that is found in the Administrator, Global Moderator, and Moderator Lounges, as well as any portion of the MTGSalvation website that cannot normally be accessed by any given member of the Website.
Should the information in question be confidential information, or for any reason be considered private information, the Staff reserves the right to distribute the evidence to the Representatives by means of Private Message or e-mail instead of displaying them in the Tribunal subforum.
The Tribunal, after deliberation, shall vote on the accusation, deciding if it is in error or if the accusation is to be upheld. A simple majority shall suffice to decide in either direction. If any of the three abstain for the vote, they shall be replaced from their given pool by another volunteer. A decision of 'error' shall result in no punitive action on the staff member or action. A decision to uphold the accusation will result in further discussion on the punitive action towards the staff member.
The Admins reserve the right to take the punitive action discussion into their own hands in the Admin Lounge, to be revealed to the public after action has been decided, at the request of the affected staff member.
Should the decision of 'error' be found in regards to a staff action, the Admin on the Tribunal shall then head a discussion among the Staff on a correction to that action, and the decision shall be revealed publicly.
-------
Questions and comments are welcome to this new proposed policy. We want to make sure that we can come up with a fair and just way to handle these complaints so that we never again have to deal with the level of drama we have dealt with over the past month.
A poll will be included among this thread for quick reference on what the community thoughts are. Please, in addition to voting, give your reasons in the thread.
Thank you all.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Ahem. Apparently I can't do things i want to.
My helpdesk should you need me.
More comments on revamping the structure, later. EDIT: See the following.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=8725355&postcount=132
Watchdog- 10 members: 5 public chosen and 5 staff chosen
Tribunal- 3 members: 1 Staff chosen, 1 public chosen and one Admin/ Global (if time constraints hamper all the admins or conflict of interest)
Is that a correct?
540 Peasant cube- Gold EditionSomething SpicyMy helpdesk should you need me.
(Click to enter the Frox Experience)
About Frox: for nearly 10 years, Frox has been helping women look good and feel great in easy-fit, mix-and-match, and work-to-weekend with just a few pieces by helping them make the right choices when it comes to clothing and accessories.
More or less, yes.
Basically, my proposal is that we've got two pools of people.
Staff-Chosen are those that we choose. Not necessarily that agree with thus, but the exceptional people we feel have the best interests of the site at heart.
The Public chosen are those that the Public feels are exceptional, those that have the Public's best interests at heart.
These are not necessarily the same thing. Usually they are, but there are times that they disagree.
This division ensures that neither side can call foul on the people in the Tribunal. There will always be a chosen representative that both sides were able to make.
And these 10 will be the pool. That way we always have SOMEONE we can ask to weigh in, and it needn't always be the same person. This also means that if someone feels they have a conflict of interest, they can stay out.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Are mods allowed to be chosen by either side?
540 Peasant cube- Gold EditionSomething SpicyA tribunal, the objective of which would be to solve accusations of corruption among the staff and, should issues escalate, be responsible for forcibly removing staff from office.
I would change to:
"A tribunal, charged with the responsibility of reviewing userbase complaints against staff members, and when necessary, recommending remedial actions, or requiring removal from the staff."
Nailing down the jurisdiction more precisely than that may take some time, if that's viewed as overly expansive. I'd rather be more expansive than not, however.
I think that corruption refers to use, or misuse, of power for undue personal gain. If anyone's gaining something of any significant worth, I'd be more concerned about conflicts of interest and the ethics of that user and the site at large.
The site has pretty glaring problems not (only) with staff but users, staff and non-staff, in general and, from that, the site's culture.
Nai, I don't know when you became an administrator but I think it's recent enough to warrant a congratulations. Also, I found the OP unreasonably difficult to follow for some reason. The heart is in the right place, though, I suppose.
— jean-baptiste alphonse karr, les guêpes (1849)
wiki subforum @ mtgs forums * mtgs wiki * site rules
2. Instead of dice rolling in case of overlap, just have the staff choose their members first.
3. Is the position for life (or until resignation)? Perhaps the selection process should happen again after a certain amount of time.
4. I think members should get read-only access to the whole site. This avoids the possibility of a staff member not disclosing some important detail. Besides — if you can't trust them with that information, why are you trusting them with something as important as deciding the fate of mods?
5. It's kinda obvious, but...current mods are ineligible to be on the Tribunal, right?
6. I think it would be better to go with 5 members instead of 3. And/or reconvene with a greater number of members if the vote is not unanimous.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
This is one of my biggest concerns. fnord's point is a good one, but I really don't like the idea of non-mods getting to read stuff in the mod lounge.
EDIT: Not to mention this whole idea seems really complicated and unnecessary, IMO.
Mabbz on MTGO | Demgrinds on Twitch & Twitter | Helpdesk
I did address the first paragraph. Essentially, one side gets them, the other side makes a different decision.
And I'm not sure, honestly. Gut instinct says no to stop accusations of bias, but I could be swayed either way.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Making the change.
And that's exactly what this is for. Fixing issues of that nature.
Yesterday, thanks for the warm thoughts.
I intended to spell things out as straightforwards as I possibly could, which meant going a little more legalspeak on it. Terms of Use-type thing. I just didn't want loose language in there.
We'll figure it out!
In some ways I agree. But in many cases, I really don't. This would severely hamper the staff in being able to do our jobs, and would also slow us down. We're already very slow, as we discuss everything to the point of pain.
I'm kind of willing on this, but I want to avoid the problem of someone claiming we get any sort of preferential treatment. I'd rather the Userbase get auto-pick than us.
I agree with limiting their term length, but I wouldn't want to limit how many terms they can sit.
I disagree in the strongest possible terms. Giving everyone read-only access to places such as the Admin Lounge, for example, would not be a good idea.
These places are private so that the moderators, admins, and others can make decisions without having to worry about others looking over their shoulders. They are confidential so people can speak anonymously. And so we can also hash out possibly controversial ideas without having to worry about public backlash before we even do anything.
Good question. Let's discuss it.
I agree with the second half. 3 is usually good for a tribunal. That's what 'tri' means in the first place.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Basically, what I'm saying is the site is fine. And to me, this plan is a convoluted plan that is just going to cause more infighting with staff and vocal members of the community. You are in charge, you have the right to a lot of breathing room in how the site is handled.
I think the best way to solve a corruption issue (if one exists) is during the staff selection process. If corruption is a problem, then when staff is being selected it should become obvious that corruption is a possibility from the staff candidate and that candidate being denied a staff position. A neutral staff member should be quite obvious from post history alone.
Go ahead with this plan, I'm not going to say any more against it, but I just wanted to have my two cents as I'm not a very vocal member of the community on community issues but do have some feelings on the matter.
*Outside of a vocal sub-community that seems separated from the community at large, and is, to me, the source of all the sites infighting. That's all I'm saying in this footnote on this issue, and anywhere else on the site. I only mention it here as this tribunal thing seems directly related to this drama.
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
GPolukranos, Kill ALL the Things!G
Tom, we can't make a good decision on what to do if we don't have all the information.
We need the evidence to make good decisions. But I, personally, don't think letting everyone see everything is the way to do so.
Whatever Criterion you like. Excellence is defined as the best, but you get to decide which best you prefer. Best public speaker? Best debater? Best idea-maker? Best PR representative? Loudest? Smallest infraction record? You get to choose.
Surprisingly, the Gutter is a fairly small part of this website. They claim to have 200 members. The website has over 100,000. I can't help but feel that we'd have a wide variety of nominations and votes.
This being said, I somehow don't see the problem in having the Staff's biggest critics being in some part responsible for deciding if the Staff is making mistakes.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Why don't you like the idea? These are people you're trusting with controversial personnel decisions.
Think of them as Special Moderators or Deputy Admins if you like.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
The first paragraph is a very good question, and that's why this thread is here. So we can find out how to fix problems.
As for how they're decided? My original idea entailed a majority vote by the userbase, advertised through a site-wide announcement. I'm open to ideas though.
My helpdesk should you need me.
7. You should be more specific about the procedure by which the tribunal is invoked. Be careful to prevent spurious use of it as a means to troll the site.
8. I think Tribunal members should get to discuss the issue in private. Same rationale as with mod lounge privacy.
It wouldn't be something you had to do. But if the staff felt like they could use outside advice, it would be there as a resource for them.
Preferential treatment goes to whichever side picks last. If there's an overlap of 1 person, for example, the side which picks first gets their top 5 in while the side which picks second gets their top 6 in.
Agreed.
I'm talking about access to tribunal members, not all Salvation members.
So...3 members at first, reconvene with 5 or 7 if decision isn't unanimous?
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
I'm sorry, but I really don't know what this post is getting at in regards to my post. Maybe It's just too late at night, but I'm confused by this post.
See Nai's post below:
There is a lot of stuff that goes on in our lounges, and some of it should remain private. Having public-elected non-mods getting to see it just doesn't feel right.
Ah I get it so it's kind of like an election?
Mabbz on MTGO | Demgrinds on Twitch & Twitter | Helpdesk
I agree. I just can't think of a good way to invoke it.
I can only do so much! I had five minutes to come up with this much, you guys get to do some heavy lifting now.
This is another one I'm on the fence on. Publicly means everyone can see HOW the result was reached. Privately means they don't have anyone over their shoulder.
I could live with having the discussion posted publicly after the fact.
I thought you meant it was a mandatory thing. If it's a private thing? Awesome use of the Tribunal.
You have a distinct point. Hrm...
Ah! I misunderstood. I could probably agree with that.
I don't think a decision should HAVE to be unanimous. But I think we could use this as a clause for very important decisions.
It was referring to non-mods seeing Mod Lounge content.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Fun fact: You propose 5 community-chosen members. There are 5 major areas of the site (Magic Fundamental, The Game, Outside Magic, Creativity, Market Street).
But having public-elected non-mods removing staff members — potentially even senior staff members — does feel right?
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
I didn't want to use that word due to the baggage attached to it for many Americans, but yes.
That was done by total accident, and I didn't see it until you said it.
My helpdesk should you need me.
I have no idea how the staff forums are handled here, but having the general chat forums for staff being visible to a public representative seems fine, and then having the "work-related" forums being closed to those representatives. Having them being moderated by global or whatnot so as to keep them 100% work related. This would keep staff drama in the public eye, while keeping staff work that needs to remain hidden away, just that, hidden. It does require some trust though that the mods won't hide away a forum. That's the thing though, if you can't get past the trust issue, you aren't getting anywhere no matter how this is approached.
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
GPolukranos, Kill ALL the Things!G