Ok, continue dissecting FLs proposal:
But first: Still think the first thing to do for Buhmann would be the GUI thing... Nr 1, add a password.
team fl wrote:Case Management
Creating a case
Usually, a case is created by a user when open a fairness thread. A fairness thread may also be opened by a FC members, if there is a spotted violation of the fairness rules.
Assignment of a case
A case dealer of the FC may answer the opening posting independently. Immediately afterwards, he or she has to contact a case coordinator. The case coordinator finally assigns the case to 2 case dealers that lead the main discussion in forum and internally.
If a case dealer is biased in any way, he must not deal with this case. The case dealer must not participate in the discussion and in the decision making process of the FC. Furthermore He or she stays out of public discussion.
If a case dealer is not able anymore to deal with a case - for whatever reason - , he contacts one of the case coordinators, who assigns it to another case dealer.
Decision making
The FC makes decisions about cases and penalties internally. The discussion is leaded by the affected 2 case dealers. Every other member is allowed to share its opinion (besides the mentioned exceptions. Best case, every member – according to the guideline – proposes his opinion about the case and the final decision. In the end, the 2 case dealers make a final decision. If there is no severe doubt by another member or a Veto by Buhmann, the decision is carried out.
NEW: Fields of activity
There are four fields of activity, each case dealer has to work in periodically with a cycle of about two weeks in every field, for example.
- General rules (Multi accounting, hacking, etc.)
- Fairness rules (Team attacks, illicit race fixing, etc.)
- Behaviour in the Chat (Insults, etc.)
- Behaviour in the Forum (Moderation rules -> Moderators?)
Of course, case dealers can also be asked for statements in other fields of activities assigned to them. The field of activity just shows their current responsibility in the FC.
Appeal
Every user has the right to appeal the decision that affects him or her. He may write his position with his arguments to one of the case dealers with a personal message. The appeal has to be presented in the FC. If the appeal is justified, the decision will be lifted. If the appeal is not justified the decision will stay. In any case, the user has to be informed about the final decision.
Penalty Guideline (or similar)
The penalty guideline is added as Excel file. Sorry, it is in German, but hopefully understandable to the most of you. Of course, the mentioned penalties are randomly chosen an may be adapted by the FC. This guideline of course is open for discussion. The final guideline should not be made public!
NEW: The guideline itself is only a recommendation. If the a FC member feels a case deserves a harder or softer penalty, it's within his rights to propose that to Buhmann. The same of course is true for Buhmann; if he feels an offense that fits this category deserves a harder or softer penalty, it’s in his rights to hand out a harsher or more lenient penalty!
NEW: Publication of Punishments:
- All FC members should be informed about the outcome of a case
- In cases of insults the victim should be informed too. But, he/she shouldn't publicize it.
- Multiaccounts: Action taken at least will be posted in the resp. fairness thread. That can be done by the case officer or Buhmann himself.
- Racism etc.: The outcome may be posted in the thread.
- Acc.-Hacking: Will be decided for each case separately.
These are only recommendations. For any case, if needed, the penalty may be published or held off in accordance with Buhmann.
Instead of going through it one by one just write what I think:
Internal case management:
A case is created internally as soon as a thread is opened.
Case coordinator assigns the case.
Discussion ideally by all members internally.
Time limit? Like a "decision" has to be made within x days, once the information is there? Changes from case to case... so not really a fix time limit. But the FC should strive to
"Voting/decision making" by everybody together.
Buh then is the executor and final decision maker. The FC stays advisory. I suspect very often Buh will just do what the advice is, so the decision will de facto be theirs very often. But the "blame" for wrong decisions goes to Buh!
Externally, forum:
As soon as the internal case is posted, a post by the "case opener" is posted in the thread. Case opened.
The case dealer (s) "lead" the discussion. Ask questions, asks for explanations, clarifications etc.
Try to keep order in the thread. That doesn't mean that uninvolved users shouldn't post there. Everybody can. But should make sure it stays on topic. Ah, thread closings IMO a bad idea.
After the recommendation has been sent to Buhmann the case dealer(s) post that a recommendation has been sent to Buhmann. So if nothing happens later... everybody knows, Buh is to blame
After Buh exectuted FL or, if we are unlucky, just the verdict, the case dealer posts: Case closed, Buh acted.(weirdly as usual) more on that later.
Private communication, PN etc. with the victim, the accuser.
To be avoided. Whenever possible. All statements by those 2 should be visible to everybody directly, everybody in the FC, but all users as well. IMO. There can be cases where maybe it's necessary? Bug using to avoid having others using the bug while Buhmann looks for a way to correct it. Maybe others. So no general PN ban. But for your usual insult case.. no PNs. Multi cases.. a multi hunter that discovers a nice way to track some multis (like the ape in the case of ornyorny) can give that info to the FC in private... since giving that info to the guilty guy (unlikely orny reads, but still) might lead him to try to avoid that thing. But generally, PN contact (later when Buh has more time to program ingame messages) with the involved parties: Avoid it whenever possible. If the FC member is contacted, he will have to share the full PN with his FC colleagues. And maybe the public? Ah, maybe a standard signature in the forum for FC members "PNs that I receive in relation with my FC membership, can be fully posted in the internal FC chat (and in the forum thread). Something like that.
Buhmanns Job
Requirement to visit the FC once a week. Make it a fix part of your week, 30 minutes of less FC reading a weak, if there's too much, ok leave it for next week, but do a bit every week
After the act of making love, (ie fucking poor users that just mildly insulted some assholes) post in the FC: DONE, with the verdict (from nothing to suit brought in court or whatever the max is (I propose not to hire assassins, if it's really bad stuff like misspelling peloton, go to court, let's not go further than that)
FC duties after the verdict
Forum:
In cases of multis, write the verdict including the banned teams, the surviving team (if there is one) etc. in the forum thread.
In cases of insults: case closed, IMO without disclosing the amount of the fine. (to easy to buy insults)
In case of team attacks etc. Case closed, see insults. Or maybe the fine too? Not sure.
Protests by uninvolved users, questions by uninvolved users. Example: Team FL, Allagen, Petit Singe have been discoverd to belong to the same user. Allagen and Petit Singe banned, FL banned for 2 months with a 10 million fine.
Bergwerk says "But I don't understand this, doesn't "don't make unrealistic agreements" allow multis? This guy, Allaflinge fought himself a lot, then it's ok no???"
Try to explain it to him calmly. It's hard, I know
NoPikouze "Why did you leave him the best team???" He should have kept Petit Singe, that one sucks.
Explain the thinking of the FC, even if you don't agree with the decision. No backstabbing in public.
Anyway, what I mean here is: Don't just ignore further questions, try to explain. Of course depends on the way the question is asked too, if Robyklebt asks "you fucking assholes, why didn't you ban that idiotic pedophile serial killer xyz?"... well, no need to answer to politely either, or to go into deep explanations. But, try to answer most enquiries, even if they are maybe a bit polemic, a bit impolite. And stuff like NoPik above, explain Buhmanns decision (which often will be based on the FCs recommendation). And don't be afraid to ask the normal user for his opinion either. You yourself are not sure what to do? Why not ask guys that are active in said thread what they would propose. The normal user is not your ennemy (as he seem to be seen by another committee, the nc) but the a guy who might even be some help. Discuss with users, no problem, but use common sense. (no backstabbing of other members etc)
Direct contact with the accused and/or victim (if there is one, so mostly insults)
verdict "not guilty" for insults and other non public verdicts: Send a PN to the accused and the wanna be victim and inform them of the result. Both are forbidden to mention the verdict? (although in case of appeals it would become obvious... maybe not guilty openly in the thread? Not sure.
Fines etc: Contact the victim and inform him of the fine. Later hopefully Buh will programm it so that the victim gets informed directly ingame at the same time as the guilty moron, but let's try to keep the programming at a minimum for the moment. Here the victim is NOT allowed to inform disclose the amount of the fine, length of ban or whatever it is. UNLESS the fined/banned does it himself of course.
Appeals/retrials
If there is an appeal by the guitly, the case is automatically reopened. Case reopened.. same deal procedure as the first time. No need for a new thread in the forum though, just thread reopened. No need to give reasons. An appeal can be demanded py PN by the victim IMO but the arguments will have to be put forward in the thread again. Ape calls FL moron, 2 credits fine, since Buh agrees, FL lodges an appeal per PN, he then can write in the forum: I know the amound of the fine, IMO it's just too low" without mentioning the amount.... Opposite, I get 50 millions fine since FL is Buhmann's darling, same deal "ok, I insulted him, I know that, I won't apologize, I accept a fine, but IMO it's way too high. It was one word, not more. bla lba
A re-trial can be started without an appeal by the victim/accused too. If a question like NoPiks convinces FC members that maybe the punishment was wrong... ok, rediscuss it internally. Here some guidelines should be there... .but not sure about what exactly.
And even if a FC member comes to the conclusion that it was the wrong decision on his own, he can ask for a retrial internally. Again, guidelines. And if the retrial starts, the info goes into the forum too. No need to mention the reason, just "reopened"
Mmh, probably there's more on this topic, but that's it for the moment...
What does FL think? Others too, but my impression is that the majority is happy with "NOTHING IS DONE" but unable to come up with something contructive... or unwilling to try, since my comments aren't necessarily constructive, but at least I try
)
need to be the first one!