Prim -
That's what I was thinking about, too!
I was going to say, put a thread in the jury room, note that it's a bench trial and then lock it. But then I had a second thought, which is TORN's point that the poster might 'plead guilty' to avoid the publicity.
Doing hearings in public is for the sake of the accused - to prevent TORC-like persecutions in secret. Well ... I guess it's also for the sake of board ... but not the whole board - rather, that the poster who lodged the complaint (if there was such a person) knows that something was done about it. So ... I'm trying to think what we've got already and how it would go down. In the RP forum, for example, if there are two complaints that a character is running amok, the admins can restrict the posting rights of that character in that forum, but they have to convene a hearing to determine how long the posting rights will be restricted.
Say you're the first person who complains. What satisfaction do you get? Just the admin saying, "I've noted your complaint." If no one else complains, nothing happens. But it needs to be that way to avoid frivolous or vindictive complaints.
If you're the second person who complains, then you might notice the absence of the character in the thread, but you wouldn't know that a hearing had convened until the thread went up in the jury room. If a bench trial were held instead, you would never know the outcome except to observe the temporary (or permanent) absence of the character.
We have under U.S. law this thing about the right to confront one's abuser. We could turn that on it's head a bit, as a responsibility to confront one's accuser. So that if a bench trial were requested, the two people who lodged the complaints that led to this would have to restate their complaints formally ... perhaps just by acknowledging to the 'panel' (as chosen) a second time that they did submit the complaint that the panel holds in its hand. So they would know that something was done, but they would not know what penalty was imposed unless the accused chose to tell. The penalty would not be published. (The Mayor would have to record it, of course, but the Mayor's records are not public.)
It could not be used for bannable offenses. Only for things that resulted in a suspension of posting rights. It wouldn't make sense for a member to agree to be banned - if they wanted to do that, they would just leave the board.
But I like the idea that the accused could have a private process if they wanted one. As long as the complainants have a way of knowing that their complaint was at least addressed. So we balance privacy and transparency.
When this current vote ends tonight, I'm going to split this paragrah ¶5 into it's own thread for a focused discussion on these points, and probably an interim vote on creating this second elected office and what to call it. I've got to read this stuff again and figure out how many draft ballots can be run simultaneously without contradiction.
Jn