Reform of appeal process: vox populi vox dei?
The original thread was merged with gibberish from Non-tennis, so I see no point in further discussion in the thread. I would like to receive some feedback from whoever reads this. My suggestion brings more transparency, strengthens our community and is easy to implement. I would like to know what you think about it.
Everyone, who has reached a certain number of posts*, for instance 10,000 posts, is to be granted a privilege of reading and voting on the Appeals Subforum. These are established posters. I believe every major fan base will have enough of own people among them, so biases are suppressed.
These posters have a right to discuss and vote in all threads within the subforum, i.e. it is not obligatory to participate. Once a thread is opened, the yes/no poll is set up for 3-5-7 days depending on the type of infraction. Tied voting is resolved by the courtesy policy, i.e. user's appeal is found successful.
Also, a poster whose infraction is being discussed, has an access to the thread with posting privilege to defend his case and provide everyone with any information required. Moderators and administrators are able to vote and discuss as well. Unlike regular users, they see all posts - that includes deleted ones, which can be reposted. Since they form minority of electorate within this system, the impact of conflict of interests is minimized.
What I like about this approach is that established users are given some power. Dedication should be appreciated. Plus it strengthens community. Disturbing elements among them are pure outliers; if you manage to reach 10,000 posts without getting permabanned, you're presumably dedicated to the forum. It shouldn't be difficult to implement either - create a new subforum and grant posting rights individually.
It is useful to have a person who decides which case is valid. However, we all are biased and so is appeal moderator (How about ombudsman instead?). Therefore, there should be two ombudsmen, while the second one is to be contacted when the first one is not convinced about validity of your case, i.e. ombudsmen or appeal moderators of first and second instance.
The first one makes notes about cases found invalid (nickname and infraction discussed; no need to justify own decisions), so the second one knows they've gone through the first instance and doesn't waste time on an appeal which is just being discussed. The first ombudsman has to explicit (!) with a keyword that he's unsatisfied with validity, so that user knows the second guy can be contacted.
And why to have an ombudsman? If there's no middle man authority, posters will most likely appeal every infraction they receive. Too much cases to decide are not too good if we want voters to take it seriously and ideally familiarize themselves thoroughly with cases.
I guess a goal here is to attract as many active users as possible. Clicking users generate $$ + they need to like the forum environment to spend money on premium accounts etc. I think that men tend to require transparency and looser rules more than women who have an inclination for establishing very strict authorities of centralized power. This is how I explain the differences between rules of TF and MTF. (There are surely men and women on both sites, I just feel we got more testosterone here.)
*This rule doesn't apply to moderators/administrators, who are ideally recruited from posters whose biases are minimal and dedication to the forum maximal.