Ax
Yes, I remember those concerns.
So are you referring to the decisions Rangers make about a hearing? (Sorry if I lost track of what you were referring to.)
Responding to
Fixer in the Jury Room (sorry I messed up your formatting):
Reposting list of needs for further review:
1. A place for serious problem resolution not yet requiring a Hearing.
2. A place for disruptive spin-off threads to be moved to unequivocally so Rangers are not required to make value judgements on where to put them.
3. A means to prevent non-serious 'problem resolutions' from infringing on the gallantry of the forum to be used for serious problem resolution.
4. A method for rebellious users (present and future) to 'show their ass' and not cause a disruption.
I would say that 2 can go with 1, because if it was distruptive enough to put in Bike Racks, it automatically fits the definition of one and there is no question about where to put it.
I disagree that there is any problem or burden for Rangers in deciding where to put split-off non-disruptive derailments. Normally the people in the thread casually reach a consensus and say, could you move these, and I don't think it has ever been a cause for contention where a non-disruptive derailment has been put. Just put it in the same forum, unless it is a chess game, or a discussion about making pickles, or a sidetrack on Fellini's techniques, etc. It should be obvious where it goes, and if not, just break it off into the same forum after consulting the amicable participants where they think it should go.
The equating of non-disruptive derailments with disruptive ones was in error. The Bike Racks was never intended for non-disruptive derailments, and there is no reason to have a separate forum for them because they can be put as new threads into whatever forum seems best to the participants.