I've come in late (as usual; blame my time zone) so please forgive me for recapping.
First,
...Although, as an aside, while I agree with the possibility to shorten the process, I'm not sure I'm happy with the way this is phrased: toning down the penalty if the person appears to be sorry, sure - but let's not encourage admission of guilt with the promise of lesser penalties!...
Why not? Reality check here: we're not talking about assault, burglary, homicide...we're talking about maintaining a civil message board. That's all we want: guidelines to maintain a civil messageboard, and checks to ensure offenders cease offending - [
not punitive measures! It's much more important to me that someone who's been eg saying nasty and insidious things is pulled up, admits yeah, I did it and then undertakes to stop doing it - than to punish the person for offending.
This is not aimed at Hobby! We all seem to have gotten a little lost amongst the branches and undergrowth and lost sight of the forest.
I would really like to keep the hearings procedure as simple as possible so that it can be flexible to apply to many situations. Surely we trust those who undertake administrative tasks (ie each other) enough to allow them some discretion? We can all fall on them like a ton of bricks if they go a foot wrong in any case.
Secondly, on the issue of Mayor vs Loremaster (or other name) - I agree they have been envisioned as different roles. I myself was very vocal in putting the case that the skill set required is very different
but that was when I thought the mayor was to be used as a spokesperson.
I've navel-gazed since then, and I believe that having a team of Loremasters (I love that, lore meaning accumulated facts, traditions, or beliefs about a particular subject; knowledge acquired through education, experience, tradition or anecdote; material taught or learned) who can turn their hand to an assortment of tasks to do with keeping our records (our 'lore') and body of by-laws (also our 'lore') would work very well.
V says a team of two, with overlapping terms. I suggest three - but either way, a team of loremasters who can consult with one another and be consulted - so that they can take time and space for RL events without deleterious effect on the board.
They can be our record keepers and librarians, with understanding of the facts and figures and procedures - whether that applies to keeping records of who's on first and who's on next, or whether due process has been followed. They can specialise or share, depending on their own strengths and interests and who happens to be online when the query comes in.
I don't see why that couldn't work. It's a matter of re-defining the office and ratifying the name change - no wholesale throwing out of the baby with the bathwater required. And furthermore, it simplifies things rather than multiplying the number of offices required.
I've never liked the idea of a spokesperson. I'd have to be convinced of the need.