Jury Duty

[StalloneTrader]

Nobody knows this community better than the users, so how about we start a Jury Duty system on bans that moderators aren't sure of. You call up 5 - 10 people to take a vote on keeping someone banned, or unbanned after the "jury" looks at all the proof.

Fun little idea that probably won't be approved, but I thought it might be fun to suggest.

 

Wont be accepted in a million years, there are enough staff to decide between themselves. It only takes an admin veto to deny a request, so this'd be pointless.

 

[Yeperdoodle]

The thing is, a ton of users could troll another player and just vote on him being banned and we'd need a lot of "jury's" to look over the forums as much as possible. As Rwm said, the staff team can do it all and are pretty swift at doing so.

 

[Uchiha_Sasuke]

The system right now works just fine, plus there's a few flaws in your jury system because to be a juror you can't have any bias on te situation, therefore one could easily just vote for someone they don't like to be banned.

 

Wont be accepted in a million years, there are enough staff to decide between themselves. It only takes an admin veto to deny a request, so this'd be pointless.

Yeah the staff act as a jury in themselves.
Your idea would be interesting for a community with an active 250 000 users, but for us it's not viable at all. The same people would always be selected, and without a rank to back them up it could lead to corruption and other nonsense.

 

[KerokeroCola]

There's no trial system, so the juries will be badly misinformed and won't be able to make the right decisions. Also, much of the information that we use to ban someone is confidential.

 

[Dan<3]

No support from me im afraid the flaws are bigger then the advantages.

 

[They be trippin]

Not going to happen, sorry.

 

[djweasel]

This was funny to me but it will never happen.