ZU Court.

I've got a thought.

Why not have a Zelda Universe Court?

We can have a jury, and a judge, and an audience. We can have voluntary lawyers... all of that. There are alot of conflicts, and wrongful punishments being handed out around here, and most of it is because of bias, and bad personal opinions on the "defendant".

This way, we get more fair punishments, and we also get to see more than one side of the story- because sometimes, most of the problem consists of what happens outside of the public eye.

Why not give it a thought? I think ZU trials could work just as well as real-life ones.

If this is in reference to your recent warning, it has been confirmed that what you were accused of doing is true. Please, it's not a big deal. No need to go crazy now.

No, actually, it's not.
I've been thinking about this for quite sometime- I really think it could work out just fine.

Just- consider it.

I'm not going crazy- there you go again using bias! o:

Work just as well as real life ones? That would be bad.

Anyways, I like the idea. Give ZUers the option to take up issue with an "infractions" should they figure they were within right.

Also, why not have a petition list on each user where if a person thinks another person should be banned or atleast warned, they can sign it and if enough people sign, a mod will look into it.

Bad idea

I'd vote the judge back just for the drama.

But the judge would be someone we could trust- like Awkin.

He'd make an excellent judge. :3

OBJECTION! If the staff was handing out unfair punishment, moderators would be getting fired here and there. Rest assured, the staff puts a lot of effort into not punishing innocent people.

A ZU court would be funny to watch, although sadistic and elitist at the same time...

HAHAPUN.

the staff puts a lot of effort into not punishing innocent people.

I disagree.

...
CONSIDER, PLZ.

That's all I ask- for once, dont shut me down.

It would be just as fun as any kangaroo court. I've watched one at school, and it was funny.

I vote for ZU court! Before major warnings or bannings happen, the defendant and prosecution gets together in a certain forum, and discusses things in a thread.

If found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, the guilty party shall be heavily warned or banned.

The webmaster (s) should be the judge. Jury will be chosen from a set of peers. Attorneys will be chosen from the best debaters at ZU. The defendant can, of course, choose their own lawyer.

I don't like it.

The authorothy on this forum is the owner, and through him, the mod team. Making judges and jury would just be an elongation of that.

It would create even more drama and angry feelings. And how many conflicts would be resolved by this? I can't really imagine any that would work.

It could be fun for laughs, but not for real, or serious cases.

And which are these plentiful "wrongful punishments" you talk about? When people are warned, they can ask the mod team to rethink it, if they mean they have a strong case. But in the end, it is up to the mods.

If you mean the members of ZU should vote for the jury and who is wrong and right, well, that wouldn't work. We have a conflict of interest there. The members go for what is best for them. But with the system we have now, the owner and mods go for what is best for the site.

Few problems.

First, the main purpose of a court is to determine guilt or innocence. The thing is, there is never any question of that here.

The secondary function of a court is to award punishment, if required. If a member feels that they have been too harshly punished then they can send a PM to a different mod to get a second opinion.

In addition, all warnings and infractions are logged by the staff so that they can be reviewed.


So, there's no real point in having this.

In addition, it removes authority from the owner, it requires people to actually be good judges/lawyers (and that people are able to get good lawyers, it seems to me that the more popular you are the better the odds of you getting a good lawyer, which means that it'd be rather injust.)

Besides, how would you make sure that the judges were impartial? That the juries were impartial? That everything was done fair?

It's just a generally bad idea.

Also, it's worth noting that such a court would have no authority to undo past infractions, and even if they could, given the evidence behind your latest one they wouldn't.

Sahara, there is no mod vendetta against you, nor are we all huge Yamari supporters. We do our best to be impartial, and if you think that one mod showed a bias, then contact another one about it. Petty grandstanding will get you nowhere.

Also, we'd have to choose what members would be on the jury.

And... zu isnt like the real world, with a crime being committed every ten minutes or so.

Erik- Then why not use it for fun as well?

Every time I get in trouble, it's usually because the moderator that punished me has only listened to one side of the story, and they have always refused to listen to mine.

Call that fair?
Fine.

At least a court would make some of the members feel as though they were actually giving something back to the community, eh? And people like me would actually be listened to for once.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

First, the main purpose of a court is to determine guilt or innocence. The thing is, there is never any question of that here.

And where have you come to this conclusion?

There is always a question of guilt or innocence, or else no punishment would be handed out to the "guilty" one.

In addition, it removes authority from the owner, it requires people to actually be good judges/lawyers (and that people are able to get good lawyers, it seems to me that the more popular you are the better the odds of you getting a good lawyer, which means that it'd be rather injust.)

No-one is professional here.
It's an internet forum, for goodness sake.

All I'm asking is to have a few innocent members that have witnessed actions and behaviors around the board to be able to voice their opinions on these kinds of topics. It's a moderator's job to do something about a situation, whereas, a regular member doesn't have to worry about dealing with such matters- and therefore, their opinion and outlook could be of more value.

...
Moderators, I feel, take sides.

When I get infractions from mods- each time I have been called names, and brought down.
Is that really necessary, what purpose does that really serve? In a court, there wouldn't be any need for those things- because they are public, and mods could get in trouble for doing things like that.

Originally Posted by Saharah

I've got a thought.

Why not have a Zelda Universe Court?

We can have a jury, and a judge, and an audience. We can have voluntary lawyers... all of that. There are alot of conflicts, and wrongful punishments being handed out around here, and most of it is because of bias, and bad personal opinions on the "defendant".

This way, we get more fair punishments, and we also get to see more than one side of the story- because sometimes, most of the problem consists of what happens outside of the public eye.

Why not give it a thought? I think ZU trials could work just as well as real-life ones.

Please provide specific examples of "wrongful punishments." I am aware of none.

Originally Posted by Tasslehoff

Work just as well as real life ones? That would be bad.

Anyways, I like the idea. Give ZUers the option to take up issue with an "infractions" should they figure they were within right.

Also, why not have a petition list on each user where if a person thinks another person should be banned or atleast warned, they can sign it and if enough people sign, a mod will look into it.

There is the "option to take up issue." It's called "PMing Scott." Everyone is allowed, and in fact encouraged to do so if they think they've been treated wrongly. I've said this hundreds of times.

Originally Posted by William Zelda4ever

OBJECTION! If the staff was handing out unfair punishment, moderators would be getting fired here and there. Rest assured, the staff puts a lot of effort into not punishing innocent people.

A ZU court would be funny to watch, although sadistic and elitist at the same time...

Truth.

Originally Posted by Saharah

That's all I ask- for once, dont shut me down.

Shutting down is what I do best, though.

Well, if anything, I feel it should be only for fun, and I'm still a bit concerned it could easily topple into spam.

(This isn't really the place for discussing this, but you can try pming another mod(see Scott's post, over mine), to look at your case. But if every mod disagrees with you, well, there's not much to do.)

Originally Posted by Scott

Please provide specific examples of "wrongful punishments." I am aware of none.

This thread wasn't really intended for discussing such.

There is the "option to take up issue." It's called "PMing Scott." Everyone is allowed, and in fact encouraged to do so if they think they've been treated wrongly. I've said this hundreds of times.

I've talked and talked and talked my heart out to the mods who infract me, and they never seem to care- they don't listen and don't want to be lenient when it comes to dealing with me. I don't care what kind of reputation I've got- my 'cases' should still be considered.

I suppose I could PM you- but how would that be any different than talking like I have been to them?

Originally Posted by Erik

(This isn't really the place for discussing this, but you can try pming another mod(see Scott's post, over mine), to look at your case. But if every mod disagrees with you, well, there's not much to do.)

Then I guess I never will be listened to- or considered for innocence when it comes to conflicts I encounter here on the boards.

There's no more reason for this thread- it can be locked.
I've been shown that it is simply impossible for me to be reasoned with.

I vote for a court, give the people a right to defend themselves when they are wronged. :]

In the end it are still the mods who pull the strings, it just gives members a better way of defending themselves.

...we don't need users to defend themselves. This is a forum. When a rule is broken, it's quite straightforward what the person did wrong. No jury will ever fix that - this isn't a lawsuit we're dealing with. Someone did something silly and stupid. Why do we need a panel of judges to decide that?

Plus, we have staff - a team of 30+ people. Isn't that enough? Does everybody and their grandmother's pants have to have a say in something? Why do we even BOTHER hiring qualified moderators if you all just want to have a jury anyway? If you're worried about PMing Scott or any other moderator because you think they won't "listen" to you, PM me. I listen to everybody who PM's me - honest to God.

And another thing - court cases usually take years to process and finish. Why in heck would we want to bring that slow process to the boards? So that the accused can run around doing MORE damage instead of receiving proper punishment?

Plus, "defend themselves"? Defend themselves from what? A 4-point infraction - when they KNOW what they did? Are we going to test and see if a person is lying? We have databases that prove if somebody sent something that was icky, or said something worthy of an infraction. We have five years of standards - more than that, in fact - that sit behind us. What could a user possibly have done that is worthy of defending themselves? Unless it's trivial, there's nothing to "defend," because it's so straightforward.

Posting a nasty image, for example, then making tons of spam posts. What is a person going to do? Go back and edit them during the court case and argue that he never made the posts in question? Horrible, horrible, and sloppy. Nevermind the fact that our own court system in the US is already highly flawed - no reason to bring those flaws over here.

I'm sorry, but this idea makes NO sense at all...

Originally Posted by Jason

...we don't need users to defend themselves. This is a forum. When a rule is broken, it's quite straightforward what the person did wrong. No jury will ever fix that - this isn't a lawsuit we're dealing with. Someone did something silly and stupid. Why do we need a panel of judges to decide that?

Plus, we have staff - a team of 30+ people. Isn't that enough? Does everybody and their grandmother's pants have to have a say in something? Why do we even BOTHER hiring qualified moderators if you all just want to have a jury anyway? If you're worried about PMing Scott or any other moderator because you think they won't "listen" to you, PM me. I listen to everybody who PM's me - honest to God.

And another thing - court cases usually take years to process and finish. Why in heck would we want to bring that slow process to the boards? So that the accused can run around doing MORE damage instead of receiving proper punishment?

Plus, "defend themselves"? Defend themselves from what? A 4-point infraction - when they KNOW what they did? Are we going to test and see if a person is lying? We have databases that prove if somebody sent something that was icky, or said something worthy of an infraction. We have five years of standards - more than that, in fact - that sit behind us. What could a user possibly have done that is worthy of defending themselves? Unless it's trivial, there's nothing to "defend," because it's so straightforward.

Posting a nasty image, for example, then making tons of spam posts. What is a person going to do? Go back and edit them during the court case and argue that he never made the posts in question? Horrible, horrible, and sloppy. Nevermind the fact that our own court system in the US is already highly flawed - no reason to bring those flaws over here.

I'm sorry, but this idea makes NO sense at all...

He brings up very good points. Although, a big reason our system is so slow is because of all the appeals defendants are allowed to make.

Well said, Jason.

Something else I forgot to mention came to mind:

While I strive to be fair in all dealings, there is a very simple point to remember. America has freedom of speech, and all that. But this is not America, this is the Internet.