Image BM community gives to players via forums, it is horrible...

[Lavigna]

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?

This  has happened in some cases without the need of a rule. Magistrates chose to abstain because there was a conflict  of interest, if we can call it that way. But yes i wouldn't mind if that actually became a rule which of course will remind a lot the way the Titans worked, meaning they were excluded from continents in which they had characters and such.

What i could suggest but i m afraid to do so because i fear it will become too much of a real life trial is the following.

Complainant and defendant once the case is open can bring 3 names each to support the case.Call people to testify for them that is.
Those people will be heard only if they have real evidence to bring forth.

In a real trial this is how it works . Testimonies come either from people that can bring evidence to support a case , some are what we call eye witnesses , others are simply stating what they know from a third party ( no need to say those aren't always reliable but are still valid to be brought forth).

I am suggesting this knowing it is  a bit too far but i am trying to find a solution that will benefit both sides when their case is public and at the mercy of everyone who reads it in the forum.
Those cases are important not only because the verdict does become a rule itself in some way but also because the verdict leaves a "mark" to both the defendant and the complainant once the verdict is reached. Both should have the right to see their perspective enforced as long as there is a valid reason for it to be enforced and not just a comment like " he is a good guy , he would never do that" or " i know him, he sucks as a player and it doesn't surprises me". This is WRONG.

[Miriam Ics]

Honestly that is going a bit too far, as that means we can lose evidence. In that situation I believe the moderators should remove the offending statements while leaving in the evidence.

If you remove all of it once or twice, it will never happen again, at least not with same players around.
This can make cases really more evident and clear for the magistrates to judge.
I still have doubts if will not be better to have the cases handled away form everyone or even if magistrates should have a second account just for this, a anonymous account.

[Geronus]

Honestly that is going a bit too far, as that means we can lose evidence. In that situation I believe the moderators should remove the offending statements while leaving in the evidence.

We can always copy the posts into the Backroom area if we need to.

[Lavigna]

If you remove all of it once or twice, it will never happen again, at least not with same players around.
This can make cases really more evident and clear for the magistrates to judge.
I still have doubts if will not be better to have the cases handled away form everyone or even if magistrates should have a second account just for this, a anonymous account.

Ι like the idea of doing it in a non public way and anonymously but that wouldn't be all different from the Titans? I mean apart the different case handling.Not sure this is what Tom wants.

[Miriam Ics]

I did not understand exactly why Titans were replaced with magistrates and why Tom want it open to all but I always liked the system of the titans.
Maybe a mix of both would work better: all cases posted at forum but evidences and testimonies sent in PM and at the end the results and decision.

[Indirik]

The Titans were the subject of a lot of anger and resistance due to the secret nature of the system. No one ever knew when a case was brought, and no one ever had any real input into it. You couldn't defend yourself against an accusation, nor support your accusation. In addition, the results were never publicized (beyond the IG message in realm where the punishment was enacted), and the entire process was secret. When a ruling came out that was puzzling, there was never any way to resolve the confusion regarding some rulings.

The Magistrate system was intended to do sever things: Bring the process out into the open, establish a set of precedents that could be reviewed by the players, allow more players the opportunity to participate in the system, and let the community have some input into steering the game.

[Miriam Ics]

I see... Make sense for me, but at same time, exposing the magistrates is not good for their characters and even the players itself. I read already somewhere about how to make sure the magistrates are impartial.
Being anonymous, they would be protected.

[Vellos]

I see... Make sense for me, but at same time, exposing the magistrates is not good for their characters and even the players itself. I read already somewhere about how to make sure the magistrates are impartial.
Being anonymous, they would be protected.

Again, that system was tried: anonymity protected the Magistrates, but it didn't actually make the system work better.

[Bendix]

This is why we might benefit from some rules regarding conduct to ensure the objectivity of the participants. Basically, we need to discourage emotive, inflammatory, or otherwise non-constructive input, so that the Magistrates will have an easier time sifting through the crap to find the truth at the heart of the matter.

[Miriam Ics]

Again, that system was tried: anonymity protected the Magistrates, but it didn't actually make the system work better.

But protect them, and they should be protected so, we can try to do this and change other things. I am sure you know how easy it is to have someone extending his feelings against the character to the player itself.

I believe we should do what Lavigna said: Only people relevant to a case should be able to comment, only people who can actually add something to the case itself. Some cases would be easy, some will need a whole realm posting testimonies, but we will not have a lot of people posting their personal opinion about the matter.

What I can think about is:
- all cases open
- magistrates anonymous
- magistrates discuss in private if the case is valid or not and who are the persons involved
- x number of testimonies
- open verdict and conclusion
- no one is allowed to talk about this anymore

What worries me is that we shouldn't even have to have magistrates and cases. What Tom said is very true. If someone start to do something wrong, people around need to stop him/her right away. With big red letters. OOC in game, OOC in IRC and even OOC in PM here.

Look how many cases we have recently. This need to stop. That's why I think some cases shouldn't even go ahead.

[Bendix]

The problem with that, Miriam ICS, is that it puts a great deal of responsibility on everyone to do the right thing. I agree, in as far as I think people should do the right thing. But I am not so naive as to believe they always will, which is why we have systems to take over when the community fails to self-correct.

Like I said earlier, this is exactly what I tried to do in the case of Menethil v. Atanamir. Keyword here is 'tried', because I failed miserably. It could be argued that I even did more harm than good, because without any authority to back up my plea for civility, my words were taken and intentionally misinterpreted by one party solely for the purpose of promoting their side of the case.

One could view the rash of recent cases as evidence of an inherent flaw in the system. This is not a new philosophical position, and, in many situations, not an entirely unjustified one either (especially where frivolous lawsuits are concerned; don't even get me started on the horrors of medical malpractice suits). But I do not think this is one of those situations.

The cases that have been brought up recently have all been valid complaints that were handled appropriately. The problem is not that the community was unable to self-correct before the cases became official; the problem is the community reaction after the cases became official.

I think it's natural to want to tear down the system and start over when something isn't working exactly the way it should. But we're all human beings (I hope), and we will all make mistakes sometime, and thus we need some regulations and policies to keep us in check before we allow our emotions command our decision-making.

[Miriam Ics]

The problem with that, Miriam ICS, is that it puts a great deal of responsibility on everyone to do the right thing. I agree, in as far as I think people should do the right thing. But I am not so naive as to believe they always will, which is why we have systems to take over when the community fails to self-correct.

Whats wrong with great deal of responsibility? We are supposed to be responsible for how we interact with the other players.

Like I said earlier, this is exactly what I tried to do in the case of Menethil v. Atanamir. Keyword here is 'tried', because I failed miserably. It could be argued that I even did more harm than good, because without any authority to back up my plea for civility, my words were taken and intentionally misinterpreted by one party solely for the purpose of promoting their side of the case.

I doubt anyone could say anything in this specific case. Will be a long time before people forget this, if this will ever happen.

One could view the rash of recent cases as evidence of an inherent flaw in the system. This is not a new philosophical position, and, in many situations, not an entirely unjustified one either (especially where frivolous lawsuits are concerned; don't even get me started on the horrors of medical malpractice suits). But I do not think this is one of those situations.

The cases that have been brought up recently have all been valid complaints that were handled appropriately. The problem is not that the community was unable to self-correct before the cases became official; the problem is the community reaction after the cases became official.

I think it's natural to want to tear down the system and start over when something isn't working exactly the way it should. But we're all human beings (I hope), and we will all make mistakes sometime, and thus we need some regulations and policies to keep us in check before we allow our emotions command our decision-making.

I read this topic all over again to remember why we are talking about magistrates now and why I did the suggestion. It seems to many of us that the system need a change to be more effective. I am just trying to help on finding a solution, not trying to tear down all the system.
I am always very concerned about the responsibility that fall over the magistrates and the consequences of them being know players.

My experience in another game was that at some point, moderators and admins was allowed to create fake accounts due to harassment as consequence of what they did as mods.

[egamma]

My experience in another game was that at some point, moderators and admins was allowed to create fake accounts due to harassment as consequence of what they did as mods.

I don't think there's a requirement that moderators and magistrates link their forum account to their BM account, as long as Tom knows who they are. But I don't think there are very many people who are stupid enough to start harassing a Magistrate or moderator. That's a good way to lose both your BM account and your forum account.

[Chenier]

I don't think I've ever gotten a single result from the titans, most of the reports going without response for months and then simply dismissed because of the age of the report, the rest being hastily rejected over dubious justifications.

It goes without saying that I prefer an accountable group of players, with their identity (and thus biases) publicly known, and their justifications given publicly and following precedents.

[jaune]

The problem is not that much who, or what does the judging it is just sideroad of the real problem, problem is the amount and type of reporting.

I dont know if it is because we have become so soft skinned that button get pushed every time we even think it could lead some sort of penalty to opposite side.

There seems to be long standing grudges between players, and even some groups... and when these more or less silly things get reported and discussed, those small things become law drama on forums.

People(including me sometimes) is taking this game same time too serious and not serious enough. Too serious to have advantage through reporting in game, and not serious enough to think consencues(? spelling?) of said action.

If i ever get reported, i doubt that i would even try to defend my self, and if i ever have to wonder if something needs to be reported, i rather skip reporting than try to find fancy words to explain it over and over again.