StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I love this idea without reservation, I really think it would vastly improve the context of the discussions in the Senate.

I'd also go so far as to propose that we instead a plea-bargain system, at least for first time offenders, that if they own up and agree to participate in their own punishment that we'll drop it down a notch from what it would have been, and that a public defender can facilitate this.

Two designated individuals with that role would be necessary however, since not merely might one be absent, but one might also need to recuse themselves. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we designate three public defenders just to be on the safe side, and they can all choose amongst themselves which cases each one wants to handle.

I'd actually been thinking for a long time that it would be nice if we could let accused people have access to the Senate to defend themselves, and this is even better.

I'd also like to propose that if she's willing, Broomstick would be awesome as a first pick for the role.

I don't see the need. If someone is being wrongly accused other users are able to pm Senators to support his or her defense, and because this is a BBS all over the events are going to be archived and the evidence present for the mods/admins. Appointing someone to be a public defender , especially if that someone does not desire the job, is not going to be productive, and I doubt it will change much.

If someone is willing to do the job, and actually wants a "devil's advocate" position then they can step in and adopt the role without the need for a formal title or responsibility.

Darth Fanboy wrote:I don't see the need. If someone is being wrongly accused other users are able to pm Senators to support his or her defense, and because this is a BBS all over the events are going to be archived and the evidence present for the mods/admins. Appointing someone to be a public defender , especially if that someone does not desire the job, is not going to be productive, and I doubt it will change much.

If someone is willing to do the job, and actually wants a "devil's advocate" position then they can step in and adopt the role without the need for a formal title or responsibility.

I think there needs to be some formal recognition for the role regardless, to prevent the Senator in question from being seen in a bad light, which is why I like the idea of a designated individual. Alternatively, though, we could have Senators at the start of a discussion declare their intent to stand in defence of the accused.

Though I was actually thinking about volunteering to take the position myself, I'd just want an alternate. Obviously I'd be forbidden to vote in any polls in the Senate which have to do with punishment for individual members if I was the Public Defender, though I'd reserve the right to recuse myself from cases if they cause a personal conflict of interest. So we'd need an alternate.

The Public Defenders should universally be excluded from voting at all in any of the voting threads having to do with punishment of an individual member. Hell, I would have even defended Warsie, since he left some nice and helpful comments on some of my fanfic, genuinely curious ones. It's hard to find a completely irredeemable person.

Sure, why not. We can put the SHOW back in SHOW TRIAL...

Lame idea.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: I think there needs to be some formal recognition for the role regardless, to prevent the Senator in question from being seen in a bad light, which is why I like the idea of a designated individual. Alternatively, though, we could have Senators at the start of a discussion declare their intent to stand in defence of the accused.

I don't see why a Senator should be seen in a bad light unless the person they are defending is guilty of something especially bad. What could you or another public defender have done for the Warsie case when he pulled his sick prank? Or the Wanderer incident where the vote was 40-0 in favor of a ban, what could a defender have done then? The one thing I will give the Senate credit for is that when there has been any kind of doubt in a matter, it is normally brought up and discussed. Then what happens next is Senators still vote their mind anyway.

Though I was actually thinking about volunteering to take the position myself, I'd just want an alternate. Obviously I'd be forbidden to vote in any polls in the Senate which have to do with punishment for individual members if I was the Public Defender, though I'd reserve the right to recuse myself from cases if they cause a personal conflict of interest. So we'd need an alternate.

I'm not saying you would do a bad job, but again, there shouldn't be the need for a formal position for this, nor should the Senate be able to compel people to do this. The Senate, and the rest of the board for that matter, should not discriminate against people who hold unpopular opinions except in certain cases (and many times those cases mean that the admins can take permanent action on their own accord).

The Public Defenders should universally be excluded from voting at all in any of the voting threads having to do with punishment of an individual member. Hell, I would have even defended Warsie, since he left some nice and helpful comments on some of my fanfic, genuinely curious ones. It's hard to find a completely irredeemable person.

You would have defended Warsie for a joke that could have ruined someone's career and reputation because he helped you with your fanfic? Darthdavid had really nice comments for mine in the past I was appreciative of but when he pulled his fake suicide stunt I wasn't about to stand up and vouch for him based on that.

Even then, it isn't about whether or not someone is irredeemable, such questions are a matter of whether or not rules were broken. In the case of someone like Warsie, if you or another person feels as if this person is worthy of representation, then that could be provided without the need for some title.

(notices Coffee's post has been added in while I was writing this)

Thanks for summing up my long winded post in one sentence you sociopath!

Eh, I just meant by that that if I did have a formal Public Defender's position, I would not have recused myself from Warsie's case, not anything more substantial than that.

Mr. Coffee wrote:Sure, why not. We can put the SHOW back in SHOW TRIAL...

Lame idea.

You know, we should definitely bring back show trials, they were damn good fun.

aerius wrote:

Mr. Coffee wrote:Sure, why not. We can put the SHOW back in SHOW TRIAL...

Lame idea.

You know, we should definitely bring back show trials, they were damn good fun.

You know, does anyone want to go back THESE days, seriously? Let's repost that here:

MKSheppard wrote:It has come to me recently as LORD HIGH EXECUTIONER of the HAB Schutzstaffell, that there is an idiot whose banning would improve this
group.

BRING IN ADMIRAL HANDSOME!

*admiral Handsome is frog marched in by Pablo's NKVD*

"Prosecutor for the State Alyeska, please state the charges against
this mec......err....board scum!"

"General stupidity and sniping from his signature...I show forth the evidence here:

That Entire Thread

Fanwhore's Signature wrote: Some of my favourite insults and quotes from some of my favourite people:

"grow a brain" -Alyeska. This was her response to something SHE didn't understand.

I'm a one women one family sort of guy....

"So am I. I've been married for 12 years..." -Darth Wong

"if I see a pretty girl walking down the street I'll take a look"- Darth Wong. oh boy.

"How can you assume that someone actually lusts for women just because he enjoys watching videos of them having sex" -Darth Wong. WTF???

"I rest my case"

*gavel bangs*

"The evidence here is clearly in favor of the defendant's guilt. Therefore...

I SENTENCE HIM TO A SWIFT AND HORRIBLE DEA...

*Prosecutor Alyeska whispers into Shep's ear*

"Oh right, this isn't the HAB, we have to have a modicum of democracy....Damned lawyers...."

*A HAB Minion walks in and hands a piece of paper to Alyeska*

"Gentlemen, I have yet more information on our 'friend'"

More Info

Does anyone want to see posters with just 27 posts get banned because Shep puts up a thread like this? Because that's what the board was like before the Senate.

In that thread Admiral_Handsome had been warned by a mod and persisted in having personal attacks posted within his sig. While Sheppard's flair for the dramatic (which I will admit I find humorous) may seem inappropriate to some people considering the situation, in that instance it appears a ban would have happened sooner or later anyways. The only difference between then and now is that the debate is restricted to the Senate rather than everyone on the board, which is not entirely a bad thing.

There are several people in that thread who, without the need for a public defender title, stepped up and posted their opinions against banning him despite the sentiment being overwhelmingly in favor of a ban. So it would seem that it isn't the case that a public defender is necessary.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I love this idea without reservation, I really think it would vastly improve the context of the discussions in the Senate.

And yet you went straight for my throat when I did it for Shep, blew up at me, and ended the discussion without apologizing. Funny that.





I already try to engage in this behavior, as a devil's advocate because I do think it is a good idea, even if I don't back the formal rules Marina proposes. Make it an official title for someone akin to Whip if you want, or don't, I'm going to keep doing it where I see it appropriate.

Ender wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I love this idea without reservation, I really think it would vastly improve the context of the discussions in the Senate.

And yet you went straight for my throat when I did it for Shep, blew up at me, and ended the discussion without apologizing. Funny that.

I was wrong to lash out against you, absolutely, but I wasn't thinking clearly for pretty much several days after the whole thing went down. I admit I'm enormously thin-skinned about insults to my sexuality, and the rage I felt was literally murderous. Far to many trannies take this stuff laying down, and I do rather pride myself in how I refuse to be a passive victim of hate, but it certainly comes with a price, and I shouldn't have kicked you in the teeth like that.

Destructionator XIII wrote:The second reason is to give the accused a contact person he knows he can use. Right now, there are three options: PM your favourite senator, pick one at random from the thread, or PM the senator who opened your punishment thread. For a relative newbie, none of these are really appealing: he may not know any of the senators, thus wouldn't have a favourite one to PM, he may not want to look like a whiner imposing on someone randomly in the punishment thread, and may thing PMing the senator who started the thread is a dead end. While none of this may be true, it isn't difficult to imagine it being the case for someone who is new or unpopular. Having someone designated to whom he knows he can safely speak his mind would lower a psychological barrier.

Is there honestly a need to baby people like this? It's written right into our rules, if you have an issue with a mod you go talk to him, and if you don't like the answer you get you bring it up with a supermod or admin. As far as I'm concerned we already have a system in place, and I really got to wonder at people who are too afraid to use it.

Which reminds me...how many real Lawyers do we have on this forum?

Another counter-proposal can be this. The OP in a senate offense thread can simply put and list the positive contribution the poster made and the negative offense he has committed.

It is a simple way to let people think for a moment before making any final decision.

ray245 wrote:Which reminds me...how many real Lawyers do we have on this forum?

Doesn't matter, because there is no way they would or should start putting themselves out there as sources for legal advice. That opens up a bad can of worms for them professionally.

Another counter-proposal can be this. The OP in a senate offense thread can simply put and list the positive contribution the poster made and the negative offense he has committed.

It is a simple way to let people think for a moment before making any final decision.

I don't think positive contributions should have that much of an impact though except for sentencing purposes. The rules should apply equally to everyone on the forum. If someone with five years on the board and ten thousand posts makes the same fuckup as someone with five days on the board and ten posts, both should be treated the same.

Or the citizens can simply nominate an advocate, if one doesn't step up naturally...

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Does anyone want to see posters with just 27 posts get banned because Shep puts up a thread like this? Because that's what the board was like before the Senate.

That is note entirely true. I joined half-way down 2005 and those show trials had stopped by then, the Senate wasn't implemented until early 2006. Based upon what I know of the board's history the 2004-2005 period was relatively stable, with no Senate or show trials by the proles, just moderation by the Admins and Mods like in most other boards.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Far to many trannies take this stuff laying down, and I do rather pride myself in how I refuse to be a passive victim of hate, but it certainly comes with a price

There is something to be said for ignoring the prattling of bigoted idiots and showing yourself to be the better person through your conduct. Surely you have heard of Jackie Robinson. Granted this requires rhino skin and nerves of steel, and I do not object to anyone vigorously defending themselves, but sometimes gritted teeth and patience work better.

Not that this was the case in any specific incident, mind, just that it is not the case that pulling out the artillery is a one size fits all solution.

I do not see any need in a defender for offenders. People who have commited offenses against SDN rules enough to warrant attention of the Senate are almost certainly real offenders and not mistaken poor folks.

Destructionator XIII wrote:Let's say for any punishment thread in the Senate, one esteemed Senator will be bound to the defendant to try and defend him in the discussion thread. This appointment has no bearing on how the public defender Senator may vote on the case. The accused would be able to PM his 'lawyer' to organize a defense by proxy.

Fuck yes. Few things piss me off like seeing someone condemned without a chance to defend themselves. Its like hitting someone with their hands behind their back. While an admin can do as they please to offenders (and this is a valuable thing when swift action is needed), if we're going to go to the trouble of having what amounts to a trial in the Senate, let's have it be a trial and not just a public humiliation. We have plenty of other vehicals for the latter should the need arise.

This Senator would be picked ahead of time and play the role in all cases. (Picking a defender for each individual case would be a pain in the ass.)

Their should be alternates at least, if the usual defender has a conflict of interest.

At a quick glance, it looks like >70% of cases that came to the Senate resulted in a conviction. While this is probably (most likely) simply due to the fact that if a poster is innocent, he wouldn't be accused, and this would never make it to a senate vote in the first place, it is possible that the conviction rate is high simply because the accused have no way to plead their case.

Again, agreed.

The cost of this proposal is low: a Senator, or perhaps two, to cover times when one is unavailable, would be appointed to the position, then he or she would have to play the advocacy role in future discussion threads. The advocacy shouldn't be too much of a workload; reading the evidence thread (which a discussing Senator should probably do anyway before voting), then trying to argue that the accused wasn't really so bad. Alternatively, the public defender might decide to look at the poster's history to argue that he is a worthwhile member, and thus shouldn't be banned for one mistake. Or something like that. In addition to this, he would have to read the defendant's PMs, but this may be a benefit rather than a cost - a motivated defendant can search through his own posting history to help the lawyer prepare his case.

Sounds reasonable.

The benefit is also somewhat low, as I doubt it will be much different than the current discussion system in practice, but it would perhaps lead to some softer actions when appropriate, letting a mediocre poster get off with just a slap rather than something worse, letting him improve, and should help give the Senate an image of being more fair and balanced.

If someone's really that bad, they'll be disciplined anyways. At least this way their would be a safeguard against hypotheitcal missunderstandings or jumping on the band wagon.

Nevertheless, I think the benefit here outweighs the cost. What say ye, esteemed Commoners?

An vote in the affirmative, albeit with some proposed modifications.

ray245 wrote:Which reminds me...how many real Lawyers do we have on this forum?

If we could get a real lawyer as a public defender, that would be nice, but I don't know how likely it is that any would want to bring their work into their time off.

Destructionator XIII wrote:There's no need to ask about real lawyers at all. That's just silly.

Its certainly needless I agree.

Do we really have enough of a problem so that we need this office? I think 70% conviction rate is because most people who get brought before the Senate are spambots or enormous jerks.

An advocate for someone who's really not that bad is a good idea...a half-hearted defense of someone who's violating board regs and has shown no redeeming qualities is not.

Good idea in theory, bad idea in practice.

Consider this;

People are only brought into the senate if they are found violating rules, and are ignoring warnings.

People 'under review' have the option of PMing senators/Moderators/Mike. I don't think anyone in the senate is immature enough to ignore a PM from someone under review by the senate.

Ulimately, if Mike decides he doesn't want someone around, they get a visit from Commander Apo and the 501st, Galvatron and his Sweeps, or occasionally Jesse Ventura with a Mini-gun.

However, if there is a legitimate concern that people are not posting those emails, maybe that should be addressed.

Perhaps whoever posted or called for the review should be required to PM the violating user, and a ban poll not be allowed until they have defended themselves, with them having 2 days to do so.

Obviously, if they screw up worse in the meantime, the ban hammer would still come down, but that's the same with anyone.

I endorse this idea. I've leapt to the defense of board members in the past citing youthful exuberance among other things. I think that sometimes it's easy for those in power to forget that mouths can override brains, and a public defender should not be, therefore, related to the senate in any official sense. an objective eye can oftentimes add fresh perspective to an issue and that can avoid an unnecessary banning.

But why would there need to be an official position? Is there something that currently prevents users, Senators/Mods/Otherwise, from speaking up on behalf of a user poised to be banned?

Darth Fanboy wrote:But why would there need to be an official position? Is there something that currently prevents users, Senators/Mods/Otherwise, from speaking up on behalf of a user poised to be banned?

No, it is done informally by motivated Senators as the needs arise. This was just an idea to make it required for at least one person to argue on behalf of the accused.