Appealing to people's interests might be a solution.
If the moderation policy is something like "comment on the case only. present evidence, not opinions. no insulting or belittling of anyone. violations of these rules will get your post REMOVED, even if it has good arguments and evidence, so keep to the rules or you only hurt your own argument."
That sounds more like a real trial, so I definitely support it. I think something to that effect would work well in assisting the defendants, complainants, and even the magistrates themselves in being more objective.
For example, I tried my best to give an unbiased testimony in the OOC Harassment case of Menethil vs. Atanamir. Unfortunately, as with my call for civility, some parties interpreted my words as either supporting or condemning one side or the other, which was not my intent at all.
If the parties involved in Magistrate Cases could be assured that witnesses are obligated by Magistrate Rules to give unbiased and objective testimony (or none at all), then perhaps it would reduce the level of acrimony.
To perhaps take it a step further, might it be prudent to discuss enacting a protocol where Magistrates whose characters will be personally effected by their own decisions may be obligated to recuse themselves? Is that already a part of the code of conduct for Magistrates? Or would it be too difficult to enforce? Because if the Magistrate's characters could potentially benefit from their own ruling, wouldn't it be safe to say that it is a conflict of interest?
