UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Create Tribunal

Discussion

Work in progress? Please pwace usewess commentz noaw!? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to save what I had without risking an unexpected browser crash. :) --Jon Pyre 17:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's ready! Read, discuss, feedback, etc.! --Jon Pyre

As far as i read, i didnt like it. It would add another layer of bureaucracy to the wiki. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A contained one though, since it consists of such a tiny group. It'd try to streamline decisions by putting three trusted people in place to quickly decide things. I don't envision cases being drawn out things but quick decisions - a speedy three step process.

1. "Hey, rule X says not to do this. Does that qualify?"
2. "We've decided that it doesn't qualify, that's ok." (a little more explanation than this obviously)
3. "Alrighty." --Jon Pyre 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

More bureaucracy = bad, IMO. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 22:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yay! A policy to make the poplar users, who are already protected by the shit fits people throw when they get punished, able to interpert what rules apply when and where they wish. No, I don't think this is in any way a good idea. People elected by popular opinion in positions maintained by popular opinion are usually under qualified for the role. I don't want a Wiki-Teapot-Dome scandal.--Karek^maps?! 02:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's much opportunity for a scandal like that - it's isn't as though anyone is going to be offering bribes, and all our actions are kept on record. --Jon Pyre 15:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You dont pay much attention, do you. Theres a case in misconduct now that i made, airtight case mind you, and its been hijacked by the two headed dog of drama doom, Funt Akulo, who is using it as a platform to personally attack me rather than the case itself. Drama for the sake of drama. Epic rules lawyering on a scale not seen since the time of Amazing. Putting the definition of the rules in the hands of the popular clique of the moment can not end well. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You can dish it out, Grim, but you can't take it. I wonder, is comparing people who disagree with your opinion to Amazing our wiki's version of Godwin's Law? --Funt Solo ^QT 16:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to take things and clearly warp them beyond their intended purpose... AGAIN... well, fuck, im going to be forced to shoot you down again. I wasnt comparing you to amazing. I said the levels of drama you have been causing in this singleminded trollish crusade of yours is reaching levels we havent seen since the time of Amazing. Thats a comparison of drama levels, not of people. And i can take far more than you can dish out. Its been a month since you even tried to do anything but troll, twist my words, or attack selective points of posts and launch personal attacks to distract from the fact that ive posted a rather neat rebuttal of the latest load of bovine excrement you have dropped on the page and signed as though it was an actual contribution to this wiki. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

From my point of view, you've been a loose cannon ever since you tried to get Nali kicked off the wiki for something of no consequence. I'm sure you'd rather I didn't point that fact out when you then try to have the person who ruled against Nali getting kicked off the wiki then punished for Misconduct. Or when you argue vehemently against a new system that would avoid that kind of drama in the future. I think that's just pointing out the truth. (Calling me a troll is just an attempt to distract people, or, as you put it, poison the well.) And, if you look at my contributions lately: I've got a couple of policies (one voted in, one still up there), that are quite popular, I've made some edits in various information areas. I also believe that pointing out when you're being unfair to other contributers is also of benefit to this wiki, as a whole. Yeah, I'm quite happy with my contribs. --Funt Solo ^QT 17:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't really been following that closely. At this point it seems like Hagnat did violate the rules and now the debate centers on whether it matters or not. I think it would be nice however for three people to quickly decide matters rather than having an ongoing argument that seems like its ending in a deadlock. I'm not sure they'd deal with this case though. The rule itself seems pretty clear, now it's a matter of whether it deserves a sentence or not. Since the court isn't responsible for sentencing they'd probably say "The rules say Hagnat can be taken to misconduct, but it's up to the sysops whether it's worth doing anything about it. Might be wise for somebody to develop a policy change to address the rule." --Jon Pyre 17:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Current Policy

Just in case you've missed it, this has seemed relevant rather a lot today: in the general conduct section of the Guidelines Rehashed policy, you will find this:

• "Moderators, as trusted users of the wiki, are given the right to make judgment calls and use their best discretion on a case-by-case basis. Should the exact wording of the policies run contrary to a moderator's best good-faith judgment and/or the spirit of the policies, the exact wording may be ignored."

--Funt Solo ^QT 17:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That rule is important, I'm not suggesting to take away sysop autonomy. But sometimes when there's confusion about the rules it'd be nice to have a definitive answer from a single source. Perhaps I could change the proposal so the court must make unanimous decisions - if three users, each independently elected for intelligence and fairness, all agree on the same one thing it's pretty likely that's a good way to go. And if they can't decide then it remains up to individual choice, as now. --Jon Pyre 17:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"if three users, each independently elected for intelligence and fairness" See, that's one part I'm really worried about. I mean, who's to know how people will turn out once you give them the reins? I'm wary that this would just give more power to the reactionary cunts that currently run this place like it's the fucking mafia. Anyone who offends them: punished. Anyone who speaks against them: bullied, harassed and slandered. Even the owner of Urban Dead tried to get across the fact that he found our most vocal ogre to have a detrimental attitude, but his opinion was dismissed out of hand. Now you want to give those same people the power to just make shit up? No thankyou. It would only take the tag-team of hate to get a third someone malleable on their side and they'd run rough-shod over any hope of a good faith community here. I know you mean well, JP, but in suggesting that you give more power to those who already wield it too heavily and without compromise, you're steering a dangerous course. --Funt Solo ^QT 15:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right to be worried about rogue judges, but somebody has to decide this kind of stuff. I'd rather that users vote on who they trust to make good judgment calls than just having sysops make judgements, since we've voted that "The term moderator implies someone who is impartial, mild-mannered, ect, however this is not necessarily true of all of the Sysops all of the time on this wiki". Those qualities are all what someone in a decision making position should have, and I'd like voters to pick out who does. And arbitrators are no good for making decisions for everyone to follow - anyone can become an arbitrator without a vote. While they might decide on a rule to settle an argument what they decide shouldn't affect anyone other than the two people who agree to have them settle their dispute. We need this, and sysops and arbitrators have different functions really. To fix the problem of rogue judges I require 2/3rds community support, give them a temporary term so they have to continue proving themselves, and allow anyone to put them up to a vote of no-confidence at any time. Also judges have limited power. They can't really decide more than clarify vague text in a rule. I'd like any ideas you have on how to improve it further. --Jon Pyre 18:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My two cents:

• Sometimes there can be significant control in how choosing how a rule is interpreted, so I'm glad to see the checks of limited terms and a process for removing judges.
• Also good is the no retroactive penalties part.

Minor quibbles

• "Each wiki voter can vote YEA in a judicial vote on up to four candidates" This seems a bit needless, I don't see a problem if voters vote yes on multiple candidates.
• "If after two weeks of voting 2/3rds of the voters support removal" The role of judges would seem to require quite a lot of trust from the other wiki users - 2/3rds seems very high, considering it would allow someone distrusted by 60% of wiki users to stay.
• It would be nice if there was some way for a popular vote to overturn judicial decisions that aren't representative of the way the majority of the wiki would like things to be run, though I can understand if this would make things too complicated.
• Also nice would be something along the lines of judges being expected to make their decision based on what they think the community wants. --Toejam 14:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason I let people vote YEA on up to four candidates is because unlike sysops there's a limited number of judges. If six people want to be a judge one will become an alternate the other two nothing. I don't want everyone to vote YEA on their favorite judge, and then be unable to vote their preference for other candidates. --Jon Pyre 19:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this. My would-be opinion has been spread throughout this page by the hands of others, but I'm still going to say I don't like it.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering

This would just make wikilawyering an official business. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually what I hope is that it'll make wikilawyering the official business of only three people, who will make a short and succinct opinion. I'd rather have three users quickly decide an issue than have ENDLESS wikilawyering by everyone else arguing it into perpetuity. --Jon Pyre 22:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's still wikilawyering, regardless of who and how many are allowed to do it. Wikilawyering is not the problem, it's just a symptom of the real problem, which is unclear rules. If the wording of the rule is not clear enough, then the rule needs to be changed. This is just going around the problem instead of fixing it. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not committed to putting this up to a vote. If there are alternatives to a judging system I'd like to hear any ideas people have. --Jon Pyre 16:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)