Proposal to bring back trials

Upon a ban, or potential ban, If the community votes in favor, I propose we bring back trials. 

Format - if a ban is largely contested or largely disagreed with, a debate shall decide their fate. The moderator who largely wants the Ban shall argue against a community appointed defender. The community votes and the ban is upheld or overturned off the result. 

The reality is that all websites run as dictatorships, not democracies. The autocracy ultimately lies with the owner but at times is delegated down to someone like Whiteflame here for an owner-manager dichotomy.

You need to realise that and it will help you be at peace with it even when it goes a way you don't like. It is simply a fact.

A dictatorship that directly goes against the will of most of the active user base is what will kill the site. Nor do I think David is largely unfair. It’s a way to challenge moderation to defend their position. What types of bans can be challenged, can be adjusted. But it largely will serve as content for the site and also hold them to the will of the community when necessary. 

Is this acceptable?

 Somewhat of an informal challenge. But I will be defense if accepted. 

I've heard those turned really toxic... But I've always been curious to see one (but ideally it shouldn't be for a user who only have like a 10% chance of logging in again).

It would not be toxic. Could moderate rfds and this one would be about the spirit of the ban. You know me well enough to know I’ll be cordial. 

I am advertising this site to both left and right, and of course some new members will cross the line. People who come to debate usually have some extreme views. Rarely anyone comes to debate about bananas and oranges. Most people crave the extreme, and they will quit the site if too moderated.

I wouldn’t mind debating some of the more contested decisions as long as it doesn’t go off the rails and isn’t too common, so we’d need some kind of threshold for controversial enough to warrant a trial.

It doesn’t really resolve the problem, though. More just an opportunity to determine whether the rules were correctly applied in one instance than it is a broader fix.

I’d offer to debate the merit of the ban and spirit of it but I think you and I largely agree on everything. 

But yeah. Merit of the ban and content. Content is always great 

Instead of a trial for this person. He’s a nobody. How about this 

Resolved : less moderation is better for the site 

Would prefer not wf as him and I line up mostly but will be a good content debate and relevant currently 

Truism? We lost over 5 very active members to bans after moderation got stricter. Iwantroosewelt, tws, poly, shila, brotherd, remy...

I def don’t think it’s a truism but it’s topical. 

Arguably, a Modetator's job is particularly under-rated, and poorly regarded. I respect those one and all who agree to serve in that function. The best way to destroy what respect they have is by second questioning bans. I don't think any one of them enjoy that function, yet children will be petulant, and it's nonsense to have to control behavior with adults, but some of them have to have wings clipped simply because of bad behavior. Agree to disagree.

I’m thinking Mikal will make a great mod. 

My choices so far are: Savant, Lemming, Mikal, and fauxlaw. 

If all those four made it, that would be excellent in my opinion

Perhaps an appeal process would be more pertinent.

Wherein the subject can make an appeal to the moderators if they so wish.

And fellow members can be called upon to offer their opinions, if they so wish.

Ultimately, reverting to the discretion of the moderation team.

A "trial" inevitably becomes a primary rather than secondary authoritative body, that will undermine, challenge and negate the principles of elected moderation.

Trial is more for content, but yeah it moves the ruling to a popular vote if a user was popular enough to warrant a trial and also holds mods accountable to the will of the community. DDO did these and they were greatly viewed and got a lot of attention. 

Not all drama is bad. Conversations and good drama keep people invested. 

I pray this ends up going the right direction.

Cmon Barney, if it turns really toxic, you just have everyone read it and vote on its toxicity, and then have another debate, and if that debate turns toxic, we vote and debate again, and if that gets toxic, repeat...

The important thing is we feature banned speech and make sure everyone reads it.  Instead of banning inappropriate posts, we make the site about inappropriate posts.  Maybe add an inappropriate post rating system, we could even give a most toxic prize.

We could rename the site, AllToxicAllTheTime.com maybe, or RacistsRUs.com, or ToxicDebates.com, something like that. 

As long as everyone knows, if you want banned and toxic posts, this is the place to come.  

That way, Racists, Pedophiles, Haters, and the Antisemitic have a place where their posts get maximum exposure, and we benefit from all the increased membership that will bring.

Not all pedophiles are racist.

Of course not, but we don't want to exclude any toxicity.

Is it even a choice?

I'm against this. Seems weighted in favor of popularity and spectacle, and could quickly become a circus.

Would try to keep an open mind if implemented, though.