One of the ideas people bring up from time to time is the ability for users violating the website's terms and conditions is to let them have a trial. To have their day in court so to speak. I've seen this idea talked about, but have never seen it implemented on a website (and perhaps with good reason). Thus, I'd like to conduct an experiment. I propose that we hold a "trial" for this case so to speak. If it's a hit, I would propose implementing this feature officially into website so that users could have their "day in court" when they wish to appeal official website action. Obviously, there would need to be some measures taken to keep this system from being abused, but we can always iron all of that out on a later date. For now, I'd like to give the very concept a test and see how it works. To do that, I am going to need several participants. 1) A Prosecutor (any user who wants to represent the good state of DART and prove that RationalMadman broke the rules and should have been banned), 2) a Defense Attorney (any user who wants to represent RationalMadman and prove he didn't break the rules and/or should not have been banned), 3) RationalMadman himself, 4) a Judge (I'll play the role just to make sure this test goes smoothly; both the prosecutor and defense attorney need merely follow my lead to see how this trial will be conducted) and 4) three fair and impartial members of the Jury (who both the Prosecutor and Defense attorney can agree on in order to insure fairness).
How this case will work is that it is the Prosecutor's job to prove beyond reasonable doubt that RationalMadman is guilty of breaking the rules and prove by preponderance of the evidence (e.g. more likely than not) that he should have been banned. The defense has no burden whatsoever and need merely show that the prosecutor has failed to prove his/her case and/or that RationalMadMan is not guilty and/or should not have been banned.
The case will start with the prosecutor putting on a brief opening statement of what it intends to prove and the defense can then opt to respond with a brief opening statement of its own. Opening statements shall be limited to one post each.The prosecutor will then get to make their case first (by questioning any available witnesses and/or citing any available evidence). Once the prosecutor's done, the defense can opt to make an affirmative case or do nothing in light of having no BOP. The Prosecutor shall then have the opportunity to present a closing argument. The defense shall then present its closing argument. And the prosecutor shall then have a brief opportunity to present a rebuttal should it choose to. Closing argument's shall be limited to one post each. After closing arguments are finished, the jury can talk amongst themselves via private message before making a ruling (Guilty/Not Guilty). The jury need not provide any explanation for its verdict.
So with all of that out of the way, I need individuals to sign up for the following roles:
1) Prosecutor ( )
2) Defense Attorney ( )
3) Prospective Jury Members
Only sign up for these roles if you are actually gonna participate. If you anticipate being unable to participate, let me know! This process is not rocket science and I guarantee everyone that even a trained monkey could do it based on what I see every day!