One of the last statements that Holby made in the past few days was that as a Ranger he could not bring himself to 'moderate' his friends. I believe that is probably true of most members. They are happy to do the routine work of Rangers but they do not want to be in the position of telling their friends what to do, and especially not having to rebuke them. So the idea that Rangers might be enforcers of any sort is probably not going to work for us.
...it is plain to me that our members are not able, emotionally, to serve as judges over one another or to submit to the judgment of their peers without rancor. Our whole dispute system relies on this ability which does not exist and therefore I don't believe that much of it can be saved. This is one area where completely new ideas and new approaches are needed.
I was going to hold off on suggesting this until AFTER the simplifaction process was complete, but I have an idea on the whole Jury process.
Rangers are the arms of this board, but remove from them the requirement of making emotional or difficult decisions. Create a set of individuals (voluntary, of course) who agree to act as Judges. They should be individuals who publicly vow to make decisions based on the Charter in the best interest of B77. They will not have any administrative authority at all (can't edit posts, reach the Admin panel, nothing). The only purpose they would serve is to act to make difficult decisions relating to the continuance of B77. Rangers act as a set of balances to 'moderate' the Judges because while the Judges might make the decisions, but the Rangers carry them out. A person cannot be a Judge and a Ranger at the same time.
In this manner, Rangers are removed from having to make difficult decisions over their friends. Judges (instead of the Mayor and Loremaster) can be required to be on any given committee that is formed to maintain that actions are kept in compliance to Charter.
The current 'complaint' process would remain. A single user with any Ranger's endorsement, or any three users, can bring a complaint to a Judge to request a decision. The Judge can make any requests for information they feel they may require to render a decision and, ultimately, make a judgement. If the defending party believes the judgement unfair, they can appeal to a Jury. If a Jury decides to change a Judge's decision then the Jury's decision supercedes the Judge's. If the plaintiff believes the judgement unfair, they must start the process all over again and provide new evidence.
Judges are not likely to be real popular, but they CAN recuse themselves from a given decision if they feel they are too emotionally attached. Given the decisions would be made by a single individual, the process will be a LOT faster than the current Jury process. Also given that decisions would be made by a single individual, the checks/balances of appeal to a Jury is important. The final check/balance is that a Judge does not have the power to enforce their own decisions.
In the event a Judge is considered unfit to perform their duties, the Rangers can vote to remove someone from the Judge pool. That removal will be immediate and remain until the Rangers vote them back in (should the individual wish to become a Judge again).
Given that I will be going on my Internet Retirement after these rounds of modifications to the Charter are complete, I will volunteer to be in this group (even Rodia knows I'll rule against her if I think she's out of line) as a backup Judge, should no other wish to take a given case for personal reasons.