I do deeply appreciate that, mikeyG. I do feel strongly, however, that we're okay to simply agree to disagree on where emotional impact plays its part in this discussion.
That's a stance I can agree with, Mikey. I do believe that the issues are worth becoming emotionally attached to -- but the drama is something that we can do without. Indeed, that (to me) is what most of this is about in the first place -- trying to put a system in place by which the drama part of dealing with issues as they crop up can be excised.
Having just voted "Other (Please Define)", here's my vote:
Whatever the intrinsic merits or otherwise of the original proposal and the various proposed modifications, two things have become clear from this thread:
1) Faith in the proposed mechanism itself is not high enough to make it useful. The whole point of a tribunal containing some non-staff members is to engender complete confidence. Since this clearly won't be the result, it makes no sense to me to enact any such mechanism at this point.
2) There is so much ongoing discussion on the subject in parallel with the voting that it isn't clear to me that votes on this poll are even meaningful.
I therefore vote that no tribunal be formed at the present time, but that the issue should be revisited if the discussions reach a point where a single, clear proposal seems sufficiently uncontroversial to usefully take to a vote.
Also, please could someone remove the bright red "read this" now? I think its work here is done.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
Why don't you all describe what you mean when you say "drama". Because I've no idea what any of you really mean. And Potter definitions don't count.
Give both a definition and at least two examples.
Harkius
Simply put, it's when emotionality overtakes reason and posts becomes less about discussing site issues and more about how angry/hurt people are. It's often accompanied by excessive hyperbole, melodramatic word choices and passive aggressive shots at other members. It's a tonal shift in a discussion from constructive issues-based dialogue to tangential emotions-based arguing.
There are examples in virtually every CI thread that reached several pages, but I'm not about to start multiquoting posts here. I've learned that no one likes it when someone else tells them they are/were dramatic. As much as I'd love to give you real forum examples, I don't see that turning out well at all.
I have read the first post, voted and am responding to the first post. If anything I say here has already been mentioned by others, my apologies. I want to respond to this while it is fresh in my mind, not after being diluted by reading all of the responses.
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.
ALL of the Staff? Or just those at Administrator or some other level?
My concern is, the more restrictive the selecting body, the more possibility of the selected individuals fitting some criteria other than what is stated here.
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.
I hope you realize this means that any time the Staff member and the Staff selected Tribunalist overrule the Community selected Tribunalist you may end up right back where you are now.
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.
Which only works if the Staff member is trusted to be as fair and impartial with providing evidence as is reasonably possible. But if the corruption issue being handled is a question of widespread corruption rather than just of one or two individuals, how are the Tribunalists (or the rest of us for that matter) supposed to know or trust that they've been given all of the evidence in an unbiased manner?
I understand that opening up the mod lounges to the public is never going to happen. Nor should it. But in cases of corruption that require Tribunal intervention, granting Mod Lounge access to the two selected Tribunalists for the duration of the Tribunal, and under strict non-disclosure agreements for those two members, seems the only way to "guarantee" full transparency and the possibility of an impartial judgement.
As a final note, what is the policy for replacing Tribunal candidates if the users feel that one of their 5 candidates is no longer suitable?
EDIT: I started reading through the response to the first post, but realized it would be a huge time sink for something I don't actually care that much about. I've given my comments on the proposal, do with them what you wish.
While I can understand what you're saying, and I generally agree with it, I don't think that it is fair or legitimate to say that when feelings get involved, we've entered the land of "Dramaz!"
Harkius
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's reasonable to think all emotion would be removed from a discussion, nor is some emotional context necessarily a detriment to constructive dialogues. But I was mainly talking about when emotion is all there is, with little to no reason involved and the real issues are largely lost. It's a spectrum, not black and white. I also don't think posters being completely logical to the exclusion of empathy is necessarily a good thing, either. We just so very rarely see it that I didn't think it worth mentioning.
"Swept under the rug" would not be accurate. We (speaking for myself and most, but not all, of the staff) just don't think the watchdog idea is reasonable. We've discussed it plenty in here and in the Mod Lounge, and the staff as a whole is very much against it.
We're looking at alternate solutions, however. Where I'm at:
1. More "Summits"
2. Re-posting relevant Mod Lounge discussions to CI with mods' names redacted (unless they don't mind having their names there)
3. Biannual "State of the Community" thread, checking for problems/suggestions/positive or negative feedback, etc
I agree that more Summits would be a viable option.
If there was only a way to have a Summit to where the 'watchers/viewers' can only watch and not speak (maybe IRC or some such would serve for this function?)
Either way, the other two may be helpful if necessary, but I think would be good alternatives if a Summit could not be held?
Re-posting the chat log should do the trick. That way, the parts of the chat that shouldn't be public information (there most certainly were some in the most recent summit, which I think Azrael/the staff can attest to) can be redacted prior to posting it to Community Issues.
"Swept under the rug" would not be accurate. We (speaking for myself and most, but not all, of the staff) just don't think the watchdog idea is reasonable. We've discussed it plenty in here and in the Mod Lounge, and the staff as a whole is very much against it.
Can I ask why the staff feels that way?
Is it more than the whole "The tribunal is nothing more than a killing squad come to destaff me" idea that was expressed in this thread, or were there serious/fatal issues discussed other than those outlined in this thread?
I guess OP wants it to be 'keyworded' like "dies" was. What word would you replace ETB with though?
When Aegis Angel is born?
When Huntmaster of the Fells arrives?
When Kitchen Sphinx lands?
When Faerie Imposter busts in?
When Dread Cacodemon pops in?
When Malfegor shows up?
We're looking at alternate solutions, however. Where I'm at:
1. More "Summits"
2. Re-posting relevant Mod Lounge discussions to CI with mods' names redacted (unless they don't mind having their names there)
3. Biannual "State of the Community" thread, checking for problems/suggestions/positive or negative feedback, etc
I don't see any reason why this would not be sufficient. The only way we'll know is by implementing the above and giving them enough time for a trial run.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Amazing Avy & Sig by mchief111 @ Rising Studios [4/22/11]
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.
I agree with all except number 4. Perhaps we should all read each other's pm's too. /sarcasm.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Can I ask why the staff feels that way?
Is it more than the whole "The tribunal is nothing more than a killing squad come to destaff me" idea that was expressed in this thread, or were there serious/fatal issues discussed other than those outlined in this thread?
I would not be afraid of the results of such an investigation, speaking for myself - I'm not interested in clinging on to this position if the community deems me unfit, so that isn't a problem. I'm where I am because I believe I can do good for the site, but if I don't do my job properly, away I go.
The question is how you get to that point, and I think a tribunal is slow and farcical, not to mention that the tribunal would inevitably be working with incomplete information, as Mod Lounge access is off the table.
A group chat between the admins and certain members on the other side of the argument should be much easier and efficient than a tribunal. Community Issues threads quickly dogpile into huge, confusing dramafests, while "summits" can be polite, organized, and to the point. Polite discourse is the best way to solve issues, after all.
I think that if "summits" don't work, we can look at alternate solutions.
Uh, you guys realize that according to the poll results, 9 staff are for (or for with alterations) and 9 are against. Not exactly sure how 50% is 'staff as a whole'?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The explosion that... destroyed our city, razed our home, and turned our fields into wasteland was nothing compared to what was now happening to those who survived.
Uh, you guys realize that according to the poll results, 9 staff are for (or for with alterations) and 9 are against. Not exactly sure how 50% is 'staff as a whole'?
I did not vote in the poll. It is not a complete sampling. Also, the opinions of staff members may have changed after they voted.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can we have Megiddo removed from the forum forever please?
i'm pretty sure i can find your ***** online within 3 minutes
I am going to echo the sentiments that Sene has laid out. It is a necessary thing that the administration be responsive to the feelings of the user base, and the channels of communication must remain open for the good of all parties. However, I do not think that major dramabombs in CI are good for the site as a whole. While I was not privy to the previous summit, it does seem that a lot of work was done and understanding was reached in the context of a couple hours. Using a messaging system has a couple of advantages, which Sene laid out in part. The one I would emphasize is that in a community this large, trying to go through a tribunal thread is going to be slow, monotonous, and time consuming for all sides (not to mention ripe for drama). I see no reason why the site as a whole would benefit from a dramafest.
The one point against it is that a private summit is not particularly transparent. So long as the transcripts are posted after the summit concludes and there is a chance for the community to weigh in on the decisions, I do not see a particular issue here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former Level 2 Judge (Retired / Renounced)
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
Uh, you guys realize that according to the poll results, 9 staff are for (or for with alterations) and 9 are against. Not exactly sure how 50% is 'staff as a whole'?
I wouldn't put that much weight into this poll. A majority of users (including staff), I'd say, voted before the discussion took place (or before reading it), and since then, plenty have changed their opinions. And of course, many staff members haven't voted at all.
The general staff opinion is most visible in the Mod Lounge, where I would say the general consensus is pretty overwhelmingly against a tribunal at this point, but pro-Summit, etc.
The staff at large has voiced an opinion in a hidden place of the forums, opposing an idea which would remove some of the discretionary power they have. (we only have your word to trust on this).
2/3's of the userbase feels that there is not enough checks and balances to the power of the administration, specially in view of the many recent questionable actions from the staff (if the ongoing surge of CI activity is to be used as a thermometer).
As the staff has made a private decision no to relinquish an ounce of his power, this supersedes the opinion of the userbase, which has been voiced in public, hence silently scrapping this idea (untill someone called you guys on it)
Seems legit, you guys handled this exceptionally well
I see no problems with this. I'm also fairly sure that creating more of the same conditions (total lack of staff accountability, etc.) that led to the gloves thread isn't going to cause more of the same. After all, in the words of the great Albert Einstein, "If you keep doing the exact same things, eventually there will be different results."
In all seriousness, discounting the results of the poll because you think a majority of users didn't think before they voted is kind of ridiculous, especially because all you've shown to support that are your thoughts even though you could veryfy or falsify that position. If there's any support for this beyond the conjecture you've provided thus far, I'd like to see it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am petitioning for the removal of all other signature petitions. WoTC doesn't give a crap about them. Get over yourself and sig this to join the cause.
Why was it necessary to have a "bump" from a vanilla member in order to have someone from staff admitting that the idea had been scrapped?
This is a very good question. I think that the staff handled this situation in a disrespectful manner. If you have decided behind closed doors that this tribunal idea is no longer feasible and needs to be scrapped, then members of this community certainly deserve to be informed of this decision.
After all, in the words of the great Albert Einstein, "If you keep doing the exact same things, eventually there will be different results."
I have no idea where you got that quote. What you have quoted is an extremely mangled version of a quote that is frequently attributed to Einstein. The quote is:
"The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."
Although this quote is frequently attributed to einstein (just google for "Einstein definition of insanity") I doubt that it was something Einstein actually said or wrote.
This is a very good question. I think that the staff handled this situation in a disrespectful manner. If you have decided behind closed doors that this tribunal idea is no longer feasible and needs to be scrapped, then members of this community certainly deserve to be informed of this decision.
-----
[EDIT] Off Topic:
I have no idea where you got that quote. What you have quoted is an extremely mangled version of a quote that is frequently attributed to Einstein. The quote is:
"The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."
Although this quote is frequently attributed to einstein (just google for "Einstein definition of insanity") I doubt that it was something Einstein actually said or wrote.
I was being sarcastic. The point I was trying to make was that the dramabombs that the staff hates so much will become inevitable now that the tribunal has been shot down, because they have been proven effective at addressing issues with the administration.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am petitioning for the removal of all other signature petitions. WoTC doesn't give a crap about them. Get over yourself and sig this to join the cause.
I was being sarcastic. The point I was trying to make was that the dramabombs that the staff hates so much will become inevitable now that the tribunal has been shot down, because they have been proven effective at addressing issues with the administration.
The tribunal wasn't the only option on the table. It was just the first. The staff are considering alternatives to the problem, Sene has stated exactly that in this very thread. The likely reason the staff hasn't commented until now on their disapproval of the tribunal is that they're discussing these alternate plans at length and didn't want to shoot down one without viable alternatives ready to go.
The staff aren't obligated to institute the first plan that someone suggests, even one with a lot of votes in a Community Issues poll. If they don't feel it will work, I think they should shoot it down. Clearly they're invested in sorting out the issue of community-staff relations, I trust them to address it in the best way they can. This wasn't it.
The thing is, if we believe Sene's words about "a big majority" of staff being against it (80%? 90%? 99%?), and if we take this poll as representative of the userbase opinion (61.06% in favor), we are then looking at a very divisive issue
Again, I don't believe this poll is as reliable as you seem to think. Many votes were cast prior to discussion and many minds may have changed through the course of the debate here. Other options were supplied and issues with the proposed tribunal were raised. It's foolhardy to think that all opinions remained static through the course of this thread. Of course, it's also foolhardy to assume that support of the tribunal supposes disapproval of any alternative the staff brings to the table. The staff may have brought a plan back to the membership that had just as much approval as the proposed tribunal which is why we shouldn't have jumped the gun and started lobbing discontent at them when the staff hasn't concluded their discussions. Don't assume the staff can't satisfy the wants of the membership until they at least make the attempt.
Whatever the intrinsic merits or otherwise of the original proposal and the various proposed modifications, two things have become clear from this thread:
1) Faith in the proposed mechanism itself is not high enough to make it useful. The whole point of a tribunal containing some non-staff members is to engender complete confidence. Since this clearly won't be the result, it makes no sense to me to enact any such mechanism at this point.
2) There is so much ongoing discussion on the subject in parallel with the voting that it isn't clear to me that votes on this poll are even meaningful.
I therefore vote that no tribunal be formed at the present time, but that the issue should be revisited if the discussions reach a point where a single, clear proposal seems sufficiently uncontroversial to usefully take to a vote.
Also, please could someone remove the bright red "read this" now? I think its work here is done.
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
Simply put, it's when emotionality overtakes reason and posts becomes less about discussing site issues and more about how angry/hurt people are. It's often accompanied by excessive hyperbole, melodramatic word choices and passive aggressive shots at other members. It's a tonal shift in a discussion from constructive issues-based dialogue to tangential emotions-based arguing.
There are examples in virtually every CI thread that reached several pages, but I'm not about to start multiquoting posts here. I've learned that no one likes it when someone else tells them they are/were dramatic. As much as I'd love to give you real forum examples, I don't see that turning out well at all.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
ALL of the Staff? Or just those at Administrator or some other level?
My concern is, the more restrictive the selecting body, the more possibility of the selected individuals fitting some criteria other than what is stated here.
I hope you realize this means that any time the Staff member and the Staff selected Tribunalist overrule the Community selected Tribunalist you may end up right back where you are now.
Which only works if the Staff member is trusted to be as fair and impartial with providing evidence as is reasonably possible. But if the corruption issue being handled is a question of widespread corruption rather than just of one or two individuals, how are the Tribunalists (or the rest of us for that matter) supposed to know or trust that they've been given all of the evidence in an unbiased manner?
I understand that opening up the mod lounges to the public is never going to happen. Nor should it. But in cases of corruption that require Tribunal intervention, granting Mod Lounge access to the two selected Tribunalists for the duration of the Tribunal, and under strict non-disclosure agreements for those two members, seems the only way to "guarantee" full transparency and the possibility of an impartial judgement.
As a final note, what is the policy for replacing Tribunal candidates if the users feel that one of their 5 candidates is no longer suitable?
EDIT: I started reading through the response to the first post, but realized it would be a huge time sink for something I don't actually care that much about. I've given my comments on the proposal, do with them what you wish.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's reasonable to think all emotion would be removed from a discussion, nor is some emotional context necessarily a detriment to constructive dialogues. But I was mainly talking about when emotion is all there is, with little to no reason involved and the real issues are largely lost. It's a spectrum, not black and white. I also don't think posters being completely logical to the exclusion of empathy is necessarily a good thing, either. We just so very rarely see it that I didn't think it worth mentioning.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
We're looking at alternate solutions, however. Where I'm at:
1. More "Summits"
2. Re-posting relevant Mod Lounge discussions to CI with mods' names redacted (unless they don't mind having their names there)
3. Biannual "State of the Community" thread, checking for problems/suggestions/positive or negative feedback, etc
If there was only a way to have a Summit to where the 'watchers/viewers' can only watch and not speak (maybe IRC or some such would serve for this function?)
Either way, the other two may be helpful if necessary, but I think would be good alternatives if a Summit could not be held?
Can I ask why the staff feels that way?
Is it more than the whole "The tribunal is nothing more than a killing squad come to destaff me" idea that was expressed in this thread, or were there serious/fatal issues discussed other than those outlined in this thread?
I don't see any reason why this would not be sufficient. The only way we'll know is by implementing the above and giving them enough time for a trial run.
I agree with all except number 4. Perhaps we should all read each other's pm's too. /sarcasm.
I would not be afraid of the results of such an investigation, speaking for myself - I'm not interested in clinging on to this position if the community deems me unfit, so that isn't a problem. I'm where I am because I believe I can do good for the site, but if I don't do my job properly, away I go.
The question is how you get to that point, and I think a tribunal is slow and farcical, not to mention that the tribunal would inevitably be working with incomplete information, as Mod Lounge access is off the table.
A group chat between the admins and certain members on the other side of the argument should be much easier and efficient than a tribunal. Community Issues threads quickly dogpile into huge, confusing dramafests, while "summits" can be polite, organized, and to the point. Polite discourse is the best way to solve issues, after all.
I think that if "summits" don't work, we can look at alternate solutions.
The explosion that... destroyed our city, razed our home, and turned our fields into wasteland was nothing compared to what was now happening to those who survived.
I did not vote in the poll. It is not a complete sampling. Also, the opinions of staff members may have changed after they voted.
The one point against it is that a private summit is not particularly transparent. So long as the transcripts are posted after the summit concludes and there is a chance for the community to weigh in on the decisions, I do not see a particular issue here.
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
Have played duals? I have PucaPoints for them!
(Credit to DarkNightCavalier)
$tandard: Too poor.
Modern:
- GW Birthing Pod(?)
Legacy:
- UWR Delver
I wouldn't put that much weight into this poll. A majority of users (including staff), I'd say, voted before the discussion took place (or before reading it), and since then, plenty have changed their opinions. And of course, many staff members haven't voted at all.
The general staff opinion is most visible in the Mod Lounge, where I would say the general consensus is pretty overwhelmingly against a tribunal at this point, but pro-Summit, etc.
I see no problems with this. I'm also fairly sure that creating more of the same conditions (total lack of staff accountability, etc.) that led to the gloves thread isn't going to cause more of the same. After all, in the words of the great Albert Einstein, "If you keep doing the exact same things, eventually there will be different results."
In all seriousness, discounting the results of the poll because you think a majority of users didn't think before they voted is kind of ridiculous, especially because all you've shown to support that are your thoughts even though you could veryfy or falsify that position. If there's any support for this beyond the conjecture you've provided thus far, I'd like to see it.
I am petitioning for the removal of all other signature petitions. WoTC doesn't give a crap about them.
Get over yourself and sig this to join the cause.
-----
[EDIT] Off Topic:
I have no idea where you got that quote. What you have quoted is an extremely mangled version of a quote that is frequently attributed to Einstein. The quote is:
"The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."
Although this quote is frequently attributed to einstein (just google for "Einstein definition of insanity") I doubt that it was something Einstein actually said or wrote.
BRG Loam Control (Assault - Loam) BRG
W Mono White Control (Martyr - Proc) W
^^An equally life-altering decision made behind closed doors.
I was being sarcastic. The point I was trying to make was that the dramabombs that the staff hates so much will become inevitable now that the tribunal has been shot down, because they have been proven effective at addressing issues with the administration.
I am petitioning for the removal of all other signature petitions. WoTC doesn't give a crap about them.
Get over yourself and sig this to join the cause.
The tribunal wasn't the only option on the table. It was just the first. The staff are considering alternatives to the problem, Sene has stated exactly that in this very thread. The likely reason the staff hasn't commented until now on their disapproval of the tribunal is that they're discussing these alternate plans at length and didn't want to shoot down one without viable alternatives ready to go.
The staff aren't obligated to institute the first plan that someone suggests, even one with a lot of votes in a Community Issues poll. If they don't feel it will work, I think they should shoot it down. Clearly they're invested in sorting out the issue of community-staff relations, I trust them to address it in the best way they can. This wasn't it.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Again, I don't believe this poll is as reliable as you seem to think. Many votes were cast prior to discussion and many minds may have changed through the course of the debate here. Other options were supplied and issues with the proposed tribunal were raised. It's foolhardy to think that all opinions remained static through the course of this thread. Of course, it's also foolhardy to assume that support of the tribunal supposes disapproval of any alternative the staff brings to the table. The staff may have brought a plan back to the membership that had just as much approval as the proposed tribunal which is why we shouldn't have jumped the gun and started lobbing discontent at them when the staff hasn't concluded their discussions. Don't assume the staff can't satisfy the wants of the membership until they at least make the attempt.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains