[denied] Removal the ability for staff to have advertisements in sigs and titles

Runestake drama for example... It's not a good look when 90% of the staff have advertising banners and shit in their signatures affiliating themselves directly with the business (for a fee I assume) and are then potentially expected to make an impartial decision it doesn't LOOK good.

I've brought this up before on a different subject matter but there LOOKS to be a conflict of interest when these things crop up.

Staff shouldn't be able to make decisions where the decision may effect their financials

Just my opinion

 

good suggestion but I cant see this passing

 

Highly doubt any staff member cares that much about the businesses they advertise, unless they are actually working for them (such as when I was for Chicks etc). As far as I’m aware it’s just passive income.

What @Pikachu says would make sense however I’m not aware of such ruling being officially written down somewhere. As for OP’s suggestion I don’t support though.

 

Handling a report where there is a suspicion of bias (a sponsorship agreement, for instance) does not equal having a bias. There won't be a causal link between staff having suspicions of bias and outcomes of rulings. Firstly, when we do rulings, we motivate our rulings. Secondly, staff discusses situations together. Rulings are generally a result of some form of consensus. See it as the product of a mini-democratic process.

Furthermore, in the real world, arbiters (not being judges), are often legally allowed to have financial interests with either party (think of arbiters having stocks, for example). This is not something new. That is why parties can often opt to agree on a 'fair' panel when they have a dispute. Only judges are challenged on the basis that they have a suspicion of bias. Which is why judges often refuse cases where there is a suspicion of bias (see the parallel?)

I don't think we're not 'allowed' to do rulings when there is a suspicion of bias - there's not a consequence linked to handling such a report. A higher level of professionalism is reflected when we avoid suspicions of bias. That's why it's more of a customary rule to wait for staff members with less suspicions of bias to take on the report. Having said that, sometimes it is completely impossible to have zero suspicions of bias, even when it comes to professional judges (i.e. when a known pedophile stands trial). Our community is quite small, meaning we all know each other more or less. I guess it's more of a social contract thing for us

The solution stems from our 'custom', where we wait for staff members with less suspicion of bias to pick up on the report.

 

This a suggestion made with good intention, and I respect that. This has been brought up a few times in the past. No support from me.

The financial gain from a signature / user title / discord ad is nearly negligible - $10 / $20 / $50 a month.

Staff provide a tremendous amount of their personal time, for free, to assist the community. I don't feel right supporting the removal of any minor compensation they receive, particularly when I believe that it doesn't have any impact on rulings.

 

Interesting follow-up question to your post: give one ruling where you think the arbiter's sponsor-relationship has affected the outcome of the ruling

 

This ^. Also, I wouldn't personally handle a report on a business that I am advertising for. Regardless if it's allowed or not.

 

I’m sorry, what? I couldn’t answer your question because I don’t think Sig/UT/disc sponsor relations affect rulings.

 

No lol

Thats their way to make some, they spend hrs and hrs here.

 

Just on this point, with RuneStake for example.

If they were to be punished for what happened, multiple staff members would lose an income stream, I would assume they pay well given the number of staff they pay.

Without naming names, it does seem the servers / people that pay the best get away with the most, I'm sure everyone's seen it.

Regardless, again, I'll end with this being MY opinion, I'm entitled to it AFAIK.

 

No support. Staff arent paid and for the most part havent shown justification for this.

 

No support. It's a free market and should stay that way. Sure there may have been a mishap or a report on said business; but. They're still very trusted businesses and companies that are advertised.

 

No, let's not cut it out for them and leave it for us REGULAR users....

They are mods with a free service role, why shouldn't they take endorsements? If you think they shouldn't at least be paid by sponsor advertisements or whatever for their time, which may i add shouldn't be just given out freely regardless, then you're stupid and ignorant.

 

NO support, Staff are entitled to make there own financial decisions as long as it follows the rules in which they enforce.. Staff are volunteers on the site and are not paid for this - I also believe that staff members are not allowed to rule on a report in which they have a conflict of interest.

 

Been a similar suggestion made in the past and was denied: [denied] Disallow advertising/ linking to sites and services you don't own.

 

Exactly what I think. I know I have had staff members in the past who I am more close with than others say they don't wish to handle reports I make/against me (I wont name who, because it isn't a big deal simply put) and that's understandable. I would like to as I said in my previous comment think that you are compensated for your time in one way shape or form, Sythe runs via donations and banner spots, you guys are equally able to make some extra funds where you see fit too.

If I remember rightlyyyy, wasn't it not long ago @Gladiator mentioned something about how much he earns over at chicks via referrals? I don't see it being any different.

This is usually why there are suggestion threads made, to give examples and such as requested above. There is nothing to say you have to nameshame someone or such, but just simply pointing out there has been this instance and that one too helps go a long way to justify us saying yes let's support.