Nin, I think it's safe to skip page 1 - 3 of the discussion, as all new ideas brought up there probably are already in the introductory posts.
Read Jny's lovely summary, which I just quoted, and then go to the top of page four, where there's a bit about bench trials.
Editing in some comments on bench trials, because I have to get the quotes from different pages:
TORN, quoted by Jny wrote: |
I wonder if any thought has been given to allowing the accused to request a "bench" trial (i.e., waive a right to a jury and instead have an admin "try" the case, possibly in private) or allowing settlements to be reached where the accused poster agrees to be banned (this option brings to mind prior discussions on this board about allowing people to request a self-ban -- my personal opinion is that I see nothing wrong with fulfilling a requested self-ban, even if it might tangentially help that poster to make a point that is contrary to the established position of the board).
With respect to the part I put in italics (sorry, nothing to do with the discussion here, really): my main problem with conceding a self-ban is what to do when people want that self-ban removed! I usually tell people I'm opposed to banning on request, but the main reason for that is that I'm opposed to unbanning on request - if you are banned without a reason, just because you want to, that would mean you can have that revoked, and can keep the admins busy banning and unbanning you as you see fit, and I think that mess shouldn't even be started with.
More to the point of the discussion: Jny and others later said that the bench trial was not supposed to be for offenses that result in a ban!
Which one is it, now?
Edit number 2: I like the case description with Alandriel drunk and running amok - that would be a very good example of the poster just accepting responsibility and avoiding a fuss. Not just avoiding publicity for themselves, really, but also saving the board some unnecessary trouble.
So, yes, I agree it's a good idea to have the option for the member facing a hearing to just admit to the accusation and talk the results over with - hmmh, who? - I think it should involve the person (Mayor/Loremaster) who has the best knowledge of the charter, plus an admin or two and the person or persons who brought up the charge.
TORN informed us that he would be on the board rarely for the coming week, so I don't know if he'll be able to catch up on this conversation and offer clarifications. But Idylle seems familiar with this kind of procedure, and I'm sure that Voronwe is, too. So they can keep us on track.
No disrespect to our lawyers (
), but I think what we are trying to build here is a process that fits
our needs - if that process, when it's finished, still conforms with some process used in some real life setting, IMO is quite unimportant.