|
I think Palmar hit it on the head. It seems to be doing it's intended job, as far as I can tell. Rules and guidelines are there for a reason. I'd like to think that, if nothing else, the Banlist keeps this forum from turning into a shithole. I think the sanctions are fine, and I think the reasons that warnings/bans occur are fine, too.
I think a council would be good. I think my ideal situation would be similar to what Foolishness proposed, but I would like to detail my idea as well.
There are two lists. Call them what you will, but for the purpose of this, I will detail it as "Class A" and "Class B."
Host A bans Player A for being inactive and not voting in the thread. Host A decides to place a One-Game Ban for Player A. This situation is pretty cut and dry. The rule [must vote each cycle] was broken. This rule could be classified as a "Class A" rule. It's cut and dry. No if's, and's, or but's. You broke it. Jig is up. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Sit out you're ban, come back in two weeks.
The "Class B" scenario is something a bit more complex. These could be rule infractions involved around disrespect, ruining games, leaking parts of you're Role PM when specified in the rules not to; things that are up in the air and subjective to each person. In this case, the issue would be resolved by the individuals on the council. It would go to them, they would vote, and decide on whether it was reasonable to say that the offense took place.
This is just my personal opinion, but beyond the set-up, I think a few things need to be installed in the system if a council would be instituted.
First, I think there should be one or two alternate's elected as well. These players have no say in anything, unless one of the players on the Council is involved in the game somehow.
To open old wounds, if iGrok was on the council, and redFF was banned in his game, iGrok should be subbed out for an alternate. Impartiality is key.
Also, I think the key number in the situation would have to be three or five people. Seven is too much.
Lastly, rotating players out is going to have to be a must. People shouldn't be able to hold the position for too long.
|
In my experience, the more complicated the system the less effective that it is; and systems like these always end up complicated. This "democratic" council system would need countless provisions; what if someone on the council is misbehaving (i.e. going light on their friends)? Is there a way to remove them? Is there an arbitration process for this? What if one goes in active, what if they resign; can "special elections" be held? Are the 3 elected members rotating? And if so when are elections, are there term limits? Is campaigning allowed? Can a member of the council play games, and if so what happens if they get banned? Does the council have a quorum? What happens if someone doesn't show up and the vote is 2-2?
See, before you know it you've got 20 pages of Council bylaws and a compicated nominaions and elections process. And with good reason, systems like this need that much consideration or an unforseen event can send the whole thing into stagnation or worse.
Remember: KiSS.
Also this whole thread is filled with unintentional references to LoTRs, Babylon 5, and Mass Effect. I'm such a nerd. :D
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
Mayor: Er, Master Betty, what is the Evil Council's plan?
Master Betty: Nyah. Haha. It is EVIL, it is so EVIL. It is a bad, bad plan, which will hurt many... people... who are good. I think it's great that it's so bad.
|
Blazinghand
United States25561 Posts
On February 16 2012 03:29 TheToast wrote:
In my experience, the more complicated the system the less effective that it is; and systems like these always end up complicated. This "democratic" council system would need countless provisions; what if someone on the council is misbehaving (i.e. going light on their friends)? Is there a way to remove them? Is there an arbitration process for this? What if one goes in active, what if they resign; can "special elections" be held? Are the 3 elected members rotating? And if so when are elections, are there term limits? Is campaigning allowed? Can a member of the council play games, and if so what happens if they get banned? Does the council have a quorum? What happens if someone doesn't show up and the vote is 2-2?
See, before you know it you've got 20 pages of Council bylaws and a compicated nominaions and elections process. And with good reason, systems like this need that much consideration or an unforseen event can send the whole thing into stagnation or worse.
Well see this is why we have the other branch of the TL Mafia government-- a judicial branch. After each set of elections, GMarshal nominates (or confirms) the Supreme Justice. The other two Councillors can veto GMarshal's nomination if they are both against it.
If there is an idea that someone on the council is misbehaving, the Supreme Justice may initiate a pro tempore suspension of the member pending investigation by the provisional Ethics Committee, which will be elected in the event this happens. Also, this can be done by a 10+ person petition to the Supreme Justice. During a period of suspension, the Supreme Justice will cast tie-breaking votes in the Council.
Elections will be every 6 months-- each Councillor has a 6 month term, and may be re-elected once before having to sit out for a 6 month term. Members of the Council may play games, but anything involving those games will require them to sit out and for the Supreme Justice to cast the third vote in their place. Two members of the Council may not play in the same game.
The Council has a quorum of 2 members, the minimum necessary to pass a vote. The 2nd member may be the Supreme Justice, but only if the first member is an elected Councillor.
EDIT: like, this sounds complicated, but it's really not. We just have a guy around to resolve issues and break ties basically
EDIT EDIT:
+ Show Spoiler +
[10:48] BH: but honestly you'd need a "tie breaker" dude
[10:48] BH: who could resolve issues
[10:48] BH: if we were gonna implement this
[10:48] V7: honestly it should be if a host requests ban or warning for something from a game
[10:48] V7: he does just that
[10:48] V7: lol
[10:56] V7: i think 7 months is too long of a councillor term
[10:56] V7: 6*
[10:56] BH: maybe 3?
[10:56] V7: I think it should 101 days and 2 hours
[10:56] BH: wat
[10:56] V7: trust me
[10:57] BH: why 2 hours
[10:57] V7: because 3 would be fucking dumb
[10:57] V7: -_-
[10:57] BH: >.>
[10:57] V7: duh.
[10:59] V7: should take a 26 person petition so that no single group from 1 game can overwhelm the system
[10:59] V7: we also need to have a system
[11:00] V7: to ensure no smufs get ellected
[11:00] V7: thats simple cuz TL tracks that already
[11:00] V7: but it needs to be in there
[11:00] V7: we should probably require an age check to be elected
[11:00] V7: just cuz you are a regular user
[11:00] V7: doesnt mean your 15 year old mind is gonna make calls for everyone
[11:01] V7: we would need an offical record of decisions too
[11:01] V7: cant like have one decision made in one way and then another way
[11:01] BH: we should have an official secretary
[11:01] V7: that way appointed 'lawyers' can help people that dont get the system
[11:01] BH: and an archives section of the library
[11:01] BH: yeah we'd beed 4-5 lawyers i imagine
[11:01] BH: who maintain and understand the archives
[11:02] V7: these lawyers would have to be properly trained
[11:02] V7: and able to produce certificates proving so upon request
[11:02] V7: now for enforcement
[11:02] V7: we need guns
[11:02] V7: lots of them.
[11:02] V7: and a dungeon
[11:02] BH: well not a dungeon
[11:02] BH: more of a holding pen
[11:03] V7: whatever makes you sleep better at night
[11:03] BH: lol
[11:04] V7: i think the point is valid that a system like this just
[11:04] V7: either is too small
[11:04] V7: or too big
[11:04] V7: you cant make it 'just right'
|
So..
The current banlist hands out bans for offences such as inactivity. These offences are simple to deal with as they are a case of a player breaking a rule and receiving the punishment for breaking that rule. The proposal will not change this.
With some offences, like behavioural offences the punishment is less clear cut and individuals can have wildly different opinions.The way these offences are currently being dealt with is largely down to the host in question, which results in inconsistency and leads to drama.
It is being proposed that we introduce a council of players that players will choose to make the decisions. This council will then make the decisions about contentious bans.Since the same people will make all of the contentious decisions, there will be more consistency in the decisions that are reached.By electing the members of the council it is hoped that the decisions will not only be fairer but that they will reflect the wishes of the community.
I think that this is a fairly good idea. For me the main question is whether or not it is worth taking these steps to deal with issues that do not arise very often.
Would elections for council members be done in a separate thread?
|
Its like you guys are bored with mafia and want to play pretend politics or something.
|
On February 16 2012 03:01 Jitsu wrote:
First, I think there should be one or two alternate's elected as well. These players have no say in anything, unless one of the players on the Council is involved in the game somehow.
To open old wounds, if iGrok was on the council, and redFF was banned in his game, iGrok should be subbed out for an alternate. Impartiality is key.
Also, I think the key number in the situation would have to be three or five people. Seven is too much.
Lastly, rotating players out is going to have to be a must. People shouldn't be able to hold the position for too long.
This is important.
Simplifying my opinion here:
PRO
* Ensures that people making the verdict do not have direct interest on the matter.
* Their decision has legitimacy due to the fact they have been elected.
CON
* Complicated.
* Difficult system to sustain over long periods of time.
|
On February 16 2012 04:20 Coagulation wrote:
Its like you guys are bored with mafia and want to play pretend politics or something.
Oh yeah, lol. It's like university student government all over again.
Let's create a Rube Goldberg justice system and complex political hierarchy to solve a small problem.
|
Hesmyrr kinda just made it clear why this will be hard to male work. Different small aspects of this will be very important to different people. For this sysmte to be good it needs to precise and big enough to handle all of those issues while being small enough that it doesn't take on a mind of its own. I dont think we will find a solution that offers both at the same time so it will be flawed from the start.
|
On February 16 2012 02:15 Kurumi wrote:
How about no?
Centralised banlist with possibility to discuss is the best banlist system ever invented.
Decentralised banlist would suck so much I'd just go away from here.
this
no council you power hungry idiots. The banlist is working fine.
|
Just realized I wasn't clear on my position. I think while there are benefits, there is no need to deviate from 'everyone discuss at ban thread in order to make decision' pattern here. I understand it can place severe burden on the individual maintaining the list, but he could temporarily give his duties to someone in order to take a break.
|
This is a mafia forum not ancient rome. We don't need a council.
|
@foolishness: I suggest moving my poll on page 2 to the op. PM me if you need to know (i bet you you already do)
If we do go through with this I call the position of evil lord of the dungeon. Red, get back in ur cage u dern dirty troll. Back I say!
|
OH OH, Can I have dips on the lawyer?
|
I'll be District Attorney.
Hesmyrr is going down.
|
Banlist works fine.
The "Council" is an over-complicated, ineffective solution to a mostly non-existent problem.
As someone said before me, if people would stop seeing a ban as the end of the world, we'd be fine. For example, RoL fighting so hard about a warning was completely unnecessary - just take the warning, it doesn't have any impact if you want to play. A one ban game is roughly 2 weeks - thats not all that long, suck it up.
Hosts are already allowed to decide not to follow the banlist, or ban specific players from joining their games (though I think myself and possibly Zona are the only people to have host blacklists).
In summary, don't fix what ain't broke, and take your punishment like a man.
|
On February 16 2012 04:52 Jitsu wrote:
I'll be District Attorney.
Hesmyrr is going down.
I think we've just come up with a great new game theme: TL Mafia forum Mafia game.
Roles so far:
Supreme Councilor
Vanilla TL'er
GMarshal
Inactive Player
Lawyer
Also @redFF, pre-Marius reform Ancient Rome used "Consuls" not councilors. A consul was also actually like a commander-in-cheif of the armed forces on behalf of the Roman Senate.
|
Blazinghand
United States25561 Posts
GMarshal should be a vig, since he can ban people.
Lawyer is an SK because some men just want to watch the world burn.
|
JUST CAUSE YOU GUYS CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH I SPEAK
|
Oh, I had plenty of experience about watching the world burn indeed....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
