Author Topic: Committee Fix (Read 9819 times)

Y2J · « **on:** February 12, 2008, 03:58:17 PM »

I posted this on another topic that was a rant about something because jitspoe posed the question in it (to come up with ideas for the committee, solutions, etc), and I figure a lot of people are tired of reading those topics and won't see what I came up with, so here it is, in it's own topic:

My opinion on a committee solution: Get a list together of people who would want to serve on a committee, have it be an application process, and you (jitspoe) pick 10 individuals, who can see different sides of arguments, are well spoken, and most importantly willing to help. Then when an issue came about, five people would be randomly chosen from the 10 to decide the case, you don't have the entire committee voting. Anyone can present arguments for either way, but only 5 vote. And also, when an issue comes about, and say it involved me. It would be unfair to have people on the committee who have expressed a hatred for me, or who would love to see me out of the community, so like jury selection, I could veto 2 committee members from participating. But on the twist side, the committee (or you, or someone..) could veto 2 committee members from participating because of their alliance with me. That would potentially leave 6 people out of a 5 needed still, and I think would be a lot fairer than the current system.

Obviously I was brief with it, and it's missing stuff, but it's just a general idea to make the committee somewhat better. And I know I gave you the power to choose the committee members in the application essentially, which I guess you don't want to do, but at this point, it is your game, it's up to you in my opinion. If you want a bunch of stifflers out for heads in the committee, so be it. If you wanted a fair/balanced committee, I think you would be able to get that too, and I think you would agree the only way to do that seems to be by people being placed, and not popular vote. Because right now a popular vote would either lead to a bunch of stifflers, or a bunch of people that don't care.

KiLo · « **Reply #1 on:** February 12, 2008, 04:06:06 PM »

KnacK · « **Reply #2 on:** February 12, 2008, 04:31:41 PM »

The only thing I find wrong with that is that a lot of the community is looking for expediency in decisions. Doing the process like that has the potential of lengthening the decision making process.

Y2J · « **Reply #3 on:** February 12, 2008, 04:35:52 PM »

The current method has already proven to take longer than people want, and has led to many not popular results. At least this way there is a fair hearing in the person's view, because he can eliminate really biased committee individuals, and if you get people to apply that are willing to do this and put in the time they should, there should be a week limit once the problem is brought to the committee's attention. Upon that week, any member who has been inactive without excuse, axe them.

Edit: On top of the 10 committeee members you get a "judge" per say, someone who knows the rules, knows how the committee is going to function, what has to be done, and once Jitspoe sends that individual a case, he has 3 days from receiving that mail (lets not make it the day jitspoe sends it, we all have busy days, etc) to get the case presented, contact the person accused and get their story and get any vetos, then goto the committee and present their case, and then give the committee one week for discussion, then hold a vote.

This would be 1 week, 3 days for a decision, from the time Jitspoe informs the Judge. If the person accused is not accessible during those 3 days, they will be banned for the set ammount. If it is a new case, with no precedent, then the ban will be indefinite until that individual gets in contact with the committee.

Fyre · « **Reply #4 on:** February 12, 2008, 06:02:44 PM »

I agree with you dom. It would be very similar to the jury selection process. There's millions of Americans, but only a select amount would serve on a single jury (ones without alliances/opposition to the person being prosecuted). Good idea, Y2J.

lekky · « **Reply #5 on:** February 12, 2008, 07:05:21 PM »

In principle its a great idea, thats why such a process is used in the real world. In this game, such a process would cause more problems than it would fix.

FlaMe · « **Reply #6 on:** February 12, 2008, 07:06:31 PM »

nice of you to come back 3 weeks later.

Y2J · « **Reply #7 on:** February 12, 2008, 07:07:38 PM »

How would this cause more problems lekky? You don't substantiate what you say with any bit of detail.

lekky · « **Reply #8 on:** February 12, 2008, 07:24:12 PM »

Yeah sorry, mainly because of the time constraint. If anything is to be changed, it should definitely reduce the decision making time, not lengthen it.

The fact is also that prejudices aren't a factor anyway. Its blatantly clear in the Committee area if someone is showing prejudice as each person must give an explanation of their verdict. Its highly unlikely that 10 people hold the same bias so this will get called out on.

The length of the process should be the main area we need to focus on to "improve" the committee.

KiLo · « **Reply #9 on:** February 12, 2008, 10:01:19 PM »

Quote from: KnacK on February 12, 2008, 04:31:41 PM

The only thing I find wrong with that is that a lot of the community is looking for expediency in decisions. Doing the process like that has the potential of lengthening the decision making process.

Will it really matter? It was 2 months before I got banned.

jitspoe · « **Reply #10 on:** February 12, 2008, 11:04:08 PM »

I don't think bias is a major issue here. If anything, the committee members try too hard to be objective. I don't think any (or many) committee members have anything against KiLo, for example, yet they felt a perm ban was necessary for distributing cheats and voted for the max ban time. Even if just 5 people voted, it wouldn't have changed the outcome.

Y2J · « **Reply #11 on:** February 13, 2008, 12:06:53 AM »

Then what are the major issues? I know time is an issue. If you had people that were actually committed, and less of them working on a given case, it would expedite the process.

And whether you want to believe it or not, bias is an issue. After each decission someone on the committee sounds off about how the ban was the right thing, how this person was ruining the community, etc, etc. While the individual complains about bias, and has a point, because really, the committee should give their decision, their reasoning, and leave it at that. They should not be agitating the person more or constantly bickering in a given topic. The way it is set up now, there is no way for the individual accused to make it a some what level playing field in their eyes. Sure from your prespective things look great, but take a look at treating everyone fairly. You give them the option to eliminate some individuals who could be biased from a given vote, it will eliminate any talk of bias.

Plus, another problem with the current committee, is a lot of people felt it was a popularity contest based on many different things. I feel if you get a standard community members have to be, and have an application/essay about why they want to serve, what their views on the current rules are, and on other decissions, etc. You would see who REALLY wants to be on the committee, you would be able to see if they are capable of thinking on their own or just repeating what few speak of, and you would hopefully get different minded people (but not guarenteed obviously, because who knows who actually wants to be apart of it).

loial21 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 13, 2008, 01:18:42 AM »

Quote

and have an application/essay about why they want to serve, what their views on the current rules are, and on other decisions, etc. You would see who REALLY wants to be on the committee,

So what he is saying is the more you say and show u care the more you should be on the committee.

I have one question. If this is such a good idea what was it not thought of before and suggested until after several forum bans.....etc....later. Transparent.

As far as showing your stance.....you all know where I stand. If you don't.... no matter the venue or forum.....

No Grieving.
No Cheating.
No Spoofing.
No Aliases.

Am I missing something? That does not take an essay or a 5 year old to understand.

Committee fix? Try fixing the community first.

The committee has done a fine job. The problem is the code is open sourced and griefing is acceptable behavior.

Try convincing others to stop this rather than point at people who are trying to help.

Eiii · « **Reply #13 on:** February 13, 2008, 01:42:53 AM »

Well said (for the most part).
Agreed on the community fix. Disgree'd on the no-aliases policy. Certainly not in more formalish places like the forum or IRC (to some extent), but there's nothing wrong with using in-game aliases.

I reeeeeally think that committee threads need to be put in a locked public sub-forum after discussion has been completed. Any private information (IPs, etc) could be pretty easily removed. It's pointless to say that community member X is biased if we don't know their opinion or reasoning or anything.

WarWulf · « **Reply #14 on:** February 13, 2008, 03:49:46 AM »

heh i talk to madman alot, i still talk to him alot. and yeah he knows i voted for 1024 days but we seem to get along still lol

i dont know kilo to well but i have nothing against him.

darkness has been cheating before and since those logs.. i know ive seen many many screenshots. i still dont really care about him. dont get me wrong though. i dont want him in any chatroom with me.

oh and lets not forget i busted bdog cheating and turned him in last week. my own friend in real life since we were kids, yeah i dont think im very bias.

DrRickDaglessMD · « **Reply #15 on:** February 13, 2008, 07:08:52 AM »

Interesting idea, I think it could be worth an attempt at least - though I do agree it may lengthen the time spent waiting for resolutions (what with the initial call for a discussion/vote, then notification of the accused, then reply of the veto's, then the actual vote - which takes long enough as it is, etc...).

This really just gives more legitimacy to the committee's authority, as a hand-vetted select group by Jitspoe has none of the popularity contest criticisms attached that we have now. What I personally think really needs addressing is what Jitspoe himself and Eiii have just touched on - transparency. At the moment we are left feeling frustrated with some of the decisions made by the committee because they are not forthcoming with a reasoned and complete explaination of any of their decisions.

for example: KiLo's recent banning. The debate about the perm nature of his ban is only fuelled by incomplete information and guesswork about the committee's reasoning, which is very frustrating. Are we to assume that they consider uploading a zip to zillaclan the same as searching for exploits, investigating them, writing a distributable hack for it, then releasing it? As far as comparison in ban length goes, that would be a reasonable assumption, yet it doesn't exactly seem fair to me. Furthermore, "If anything, the committee members try too hard to be objective." (Jitspoe, 2008) suggests that such votes are not well-reasoned, but skewed by a desire to appear firm and objective - leading to a bias towards harsher punishment when it isn't necessary.

So,

Quote

I reeeeeally think that committee threads need to be put in a locked public sub-forum after discussion has been completed. Any private information (IPs, etc) could be pretty easily removed. It's pointless to say that community member X is biased if we don't know their opinion or reasoning or anything.

pretty much hits the nail on head - what are peoples thoughts on this? I think it would provide an adequate level of transparency to the committee debates and in lieu of a proper 'press release' explaining how decisions were come to, I think it's all you can do to stem the frustration felt towards committee decisions of late.

- Doc

Herron · « **Reply #16 on:** February 13, 2008, 07:36:58 AM »

I like Y2J's idea of jitspoe picking the committee members -- not because I think they're biased or anything, but because Y2J's right -- it's jits' game. I also like his idea of not requiring all 10 people to vote in order to expedite the decision time; however, I think it should be more of a process like this:

1. Issue comes up and is posted on the Committee Board for vote.
2. A standard time of 4 or 5 days (or whatever number -- it should be greater than 3 because people have lives, but obviously not higher than like 10) from the time it's posted for committee discussion is open for discussion and voting by all of the committee members.
3. At the end of the standard preset period (i.e., 4 days) the votes are tallied. Not all committee members are required to vote, but there must be a minimum of 5 votes in order to act on what the committee decides. If there's a tie (like if 6 people vote, or all 10) or if less than 5 people vote, jitspoe makes the final decision.

I really think the only problem right now is the discrepancy in the time it takes for the committee to make a decision. If you clearly set out that there will be a set number of days from the time it's presented to the committee, I think it'll really help move things along in the long run, but I think the only way for this to occur is if you reduce the number of required committee members voting. I know on a couple of cases the reason for the delay was that not all of the committee members had voted, and I think Y2J's idea of not requiring all 10 would be a real help.

As for the vetoing of who gets to vote in your case... I dunno. I haven't really seen much/any bias from the committee members so far, but maybe give jits the power to make a decision contrary to the committee if he feels it's necessary -- such as if the 5 people that vote on an issue don't like the accused or if the 5 people that vote are buddies with the accused. Just my 2 cents.

atmays · « **Reply #17 on:** February 13, 2008, 08:06:13 AM »

I personally think i would be a good committee member

y00tz · « **Reply #18 on:** February 13, 2008, 08:30:13 AM »

Quote from: DrRickDaglessMD on February 13, 2008, 07:08:52 AM

So,
Quote
I reeeeeally think that committee threads need to be put in a locked public sub-forum after discussion has been completed. Any private information (IPs, etc) could be pretty easily removed. It's pointless to say that community member X is biased if we don't know their opinion or reasoning or anything.
pretty much hits the nail on head - what are peoples thoughts on this?

- Doc

I've been saying this since the very beginning

lekky · « **Reply #19 on:** February 13, 2008, 01:06:10 PM »

Quote from: DrRickDaglessMD on February 13, 2008, 07:08:52 AM

Furthermore, "If anything, the committee members try too hard to be objective." (Jitspoe, 2008) suggests that such votes are not well-reasoned, but skewed by a desire to appear firm and objective - leading to a bias towards harsher punishment when it isn't necessary.
- Doc

Well this links back to my point about other committee members calling people out on biased decisions. Everyone posts why they made their decision, and if its clear they are being biased it will be called out upon and the bias removed. Likewise if its obvious that someone is going out of their way to show unbias, this will be called out too.

One example of this is when a case arose regarding one of the members of a clan that one of the committee members was also a member of. They actually voted for a harsher ban than was necessary, however this was called out upon and the bias (extreme non-bias?) removed from the discussion.

Quote from: y00tz on February 13, 2008, 08:30:13 AM

So,
Quote
I reeeeeally think that committee threads need to be put in a locked public sub-forum after discussion has been completed. Any private information (IPs, etc) could be pretty easily removed. It's pointless to say that community member X is biased if we don't know their opinion or reasoning or anything.
pretty much hits the nail on head - what are peoples thoughts on this?

- Doc

I've been saying this since the very beginning

The only problem I have with is the nature of the people in this forum and who play the game. Whats very likely to happen is that committee members will be hounded for voicing their opinion publically, which in turn will lead committee members to be more reserved and not actually show what they truly think about the case. Right now committee members are protected from the abuse, and thus are free to not worry about showing what they actually think. Jitspoe, and 9 other members are there to ensure that people think logically and do not let bias and other things get in the way.

Making it open just adds another problem.