I'm a big supporter of public raid petitions, so long as they are done correctly.
For a long time I had no interest in this kind of system. There's plenty of little issues that could pop up, and it just seemed like a hassle. My opinion has completely changed, however, after overseeing a long period of misinformation, conspiracy theories, and outright bullshit that makes Sirken and I - and, by extension, the rest of the staff/server - look like biased incompetent assholes. I was naive enough to think that if we were patient, informative, and honest about our decision making process to a few individuals involved in the dispute, that our reasoning could -
at the bare minimum - be communicated clearly and in its entirety without being skewed, improperly summarized, or straight up lied about. Obviously this is a pipe dream, and even players with the best intentions and respect for the staff can make these mistakes, especially when tensions are high or decisions are seen as wrong/unfair. As a result, I'd have no problem with public raid petitions, so long as a few things were set in place. The poster I've quoted has a good start:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tpar
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
1) It might mean that the public petitions will have to be more "professionally prepared", if they are going to meet some sort of standard for being succinct and relatively brief.
2) There can be some "rules of conduct" established, that everyone who practices before the GMs are obligated to follow. That could include rules of procedure that include a requirement that an argument not raised in the initial petition is deemed to be abandoned.
**#3 redacted, see below**
4) The initial petition would need to have all the evidence attached, and once that has been received, the responding guild / individual would have a certain time to respond, and then the case would be considered to be submitted. GM's (9/10 times it's both of us reviewing a dispute. rarely are they handled by just 1 GM.) would then give a ruling. However, just as in our current real life legal system, a precedent is not always binding. Often, an appellate court will note a similar case, and then come to a different conclusion. I see no reason why that couldn't happen here.
|
Replace #3 with specific rules on who can post in a given petition thread. This would be limited to one member of the petitioning guild, one member from (each of) the opposing guild(s), and Sirken/myself. Posts would go in a specific order:
1) Petition itself.
2) Defense from accused guild(s). If more than one guild is accused, each guild will now be able to defend itself, provide opposing evidence, etc.
3) Rebuttal from Petitioning guild (maybe put some kind of limit on this? could start with no limit and see what happens, placing a cap if needed)
4) Rebuttal from accused guild(s). Final post(s). The thread would be locked at this point so that only the staff could respond further.
Sirken and myself could post at any time. I feel like offering each side two posts total ensures we get it ALL on the table. There would definitely be times when we had other questions, but that's easy to fit in at the end. Something important to note is that in the end, we always reserve the right to make whatever call we feel is right and best for the server, so we're never going to agree to be bound by anything except server administration. Citing precedent is great, for example, but we could rule the complete opposite if we felt it was the right call (and this way, everyone would actually get to see
why it wasn't being followed!).
This all boils down to one question (for me, at least): Is the hassle and inflexibility of an open system worth the reduction in misconceptions/tinfoilhats/false information? I say yes, but I also have a tendency to put too much stock in player perception. It's also important to note that most complaints come from a vocal minority that will never be happy with staff decisions no matter what. I've seen enough legitimate complaints lately, however, from people who were outright lied to or misled about a verdict, that i'd support a system like this if done properly.
I had already mentioned to Sirken and Rogean (and maybe nilbog too?) that I had a tentative +1 to a public raid dispute system done right. but it's not
that big of a deal for me so it's not like I'm going to crusade for it. I wrote this just to show my support and outline what would, in my opinion, be a workable system. Good luck!
tl;dr? +1 from deru if done right because i care about each and every one of our players feelings. GL convincing other 3/4's of the senior staff.