idea for this site: courtrooms

ok so i know it seems nuts but let me explain. there should be two types of courtrooms, modderator and personal, then there should be two sub groups, open viewing and closed viewing. now let me explain to you about each group/sub-group. modderator courtrooms will basicly be places where a person can explain why or why not they should be banned, with exeptions of talking in the rp rooms, skunk/savent bot bans, or 24hr. bans. these should be carried out by a different personn than the baner. now lets explain a user courtroom. a user courtroom can be submitted to judge, [kind of like a gameshow host but for courts] if the judge approves, than a user can have there own personal courtroom for a small amount of time. but the user cant be the judge, now lets explain open and closed courtrooms. open and closed courtrooms are self explanatory, its kinda like people watching a case in a actual courtroom, weather the can come in or not. now lets go over jurys. they will be randomly selected people from paint, mainly people who have been on for more than a month, who are also willing to do it. thank you for reading this and i hope my idea gets used.

there is a light at the end of every tunnel, just hope and pray that its not a train

Cool this sound good.
Maybe hull-breach will try this :)

A true developer

This is good!

Never fear or the fear,fears you!

You may have written a sizable entry, but you are neglecting to delve into the premises, the effects, the reasoning, the details that count. If I may, I would point out just a few things:

If "moderator" courtrooms are for appealing bans, what are "personal" courtrooms for? Is it really acceptable to allow users to argue over whether they should be banned or not, when 99% of sane users would simply plead against a ban? What gives them that right in the first place? What gives randomly-selected "juries" the right to question such? Are you giving moderators the freedom to give leeway? How would the mechanisms of such a system successfully ensure members and participation? Is not this whole idea taking responsibility out of the moderator's hand and into the (largely irresponsible) public's? Since when did website moderation become democratic?

I find all of this more akin to a game than a tool and a process, and it'd be well for the two to stay separate. In all honesty, I deem this seemingly serious idea both unnecessarily convoluted and highly reckless.

I know I'm being very critical and I don't intend to insult, and I apologize in advance, but when attempting to put forward a notion of such weight, considerable thought should take place.

Catch my drift.

↑Exactly! Mabye this isn't a good idea, we should let hull work on TMJ.

Goodbye.

Bond,yeah l think so too

Never fear or the fear,fears you!

This may be a kid's site but making a mockery of the court system?

That's just freaking wrong.
This thread doesn't deserve a lock, it deserves permanent deletion.

The judiciary system is serious--it is not a game.

Seriously?
I mean, how old are you?
Ten years old?

Grow up.

Does this alter-ego make me look stupid?

The other problem is time difference, people can't go online at times other people can.

'The Real Problem with Real Life is There's No BGM'

The distinguished PasserByGuy spake:

This may be a kid's site but making a mockery of the court system?

That's just freaking wrong.
This thread doesn't deserve a lock, it deserves permanent deletion.

The judiciary system is serious--it is not a game.

Seriously?
I mean, how old are you?
Ten years old?

Grow up.

He didn't put his birthday. As well this is just an idea, nothing else.




This could be important, users can break serveral rules, so it will ban the user forever.

If anyone takes this seriously, I've found a new job. (Miiverse story thing)

My post was deleted... o.O

I like the idea of having a ban review kind of thing. Simply seeing if the Admin banned fairly.

It's my job to help the next generation, and set a good example for them. And for that I'll gladly lay down my life.

i would make so that
A. the jury isn't randomly accepted, its one of the overlords

B.its all closed courtrooms

C.no "pesonal" courtrooms since there would be no use of them

but overall an actual court would just be an anoiance(spelt wrong i know) to mostlyy everyone

If everyone who followed their dreams made it, we all would be famous.

The distinguished Skittles spake:

My post was deleted... o.O

I like the idea of having a ban review kind of thing. Simply seeing if the Admin banned fairly.

My post was too. :L
That also sounds like a fair idea too, kinda like where you can look back on and see why the such person was banned by a admin?

Don't argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

Maybe the jury is just the first five people to accept an invite. An admin could also testify for a longer ban.

What about precedent though? Can the previous decision be used if the case is similar? Is it bound by courts higher up in the US or Europe?

Hate is such a weak emotion

And really, this should only occur in cases where there is a dispute between the Admin who banned and others present. And by others, I don't mean one other member, I mean at least a few, otherwise, when someone wants to make trouble, they can't just have one of their friends come to the chat room to vouch for them. :l

It's my job to help the next generation, and set a good example for them. And for that I'll gladly lay down my life.

The distinguished LinkZelda spake:

Maybe the jury is just the first five people to accept an invite. An admin could also testify for a longer ban.

What about precedent though? Can the previous decision be used if the case is similar? Is it bound by courts higher up in the US or Europe?

i like your thinking....randomly selected people should be out....but it should be people who have no oppion [misspelled] on the matter, like in rl

there is a light at the end of every tunnel, just hope and pray that its not a train

The distinguished Skittles spake:

And really, this should only occur in cases where there is a dispute between the Admin who banned and others present. And by others, I don't mean one other member, I mean at least a few, otherwise, when someone wants to make trouble, they can't just have one of their friends come to the chat room to vouch for them. :l

thats actually a pretty good idea...because the courtrooms should be reserved for larger matters

there is a light at the end of every tunnel, just hope and pray that its not a train

It doesn't seem very practical.

Moo.

The distinguished The Keymaster spake:

Why can't you have the right to PM the Admin who banned you to privately talk instead of everyone watching?

If you did something so bad that it needs to be kept private, it was obviously something worth banning and there wouldn't even be a need for the court thingamajig.

It's my job to help the next generation, and set a good example for them. And for that I'll gladly lay down my life.

The distinguished Flare2555 spake:

This is a LOT of work for just a one day ban. If you do something bad enough to be permad, you probably don't deserve a chance for redemption, In my opinion. If anything, there could be a 'Appeal a ban' section in the BBs, for only banned users, but I don't think they'd get checked

Most of us have been saying it should really only be used when a perma is involved.

It's my job to help the next generation, and set a good example for them. And for that I'll gladly lay down my life.

The distinguished Skittles spake:

The distinguished Flare2555 spake:This is a LOT of work for just a one day ban. If you do something bad enough to be permad, you probably don't deserve a chance for redemption, In my opinion. If anything, there could be a 'Appeal a ban' section in the BBs, for only banned users, but I don't think they'd get checked

Most of us have been saying it should really only be used when a perma is involved.

Yeah.

Without stories, we wouldn't be human beings at all. -- Philip Pullman // 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0