Discussion: public defender

[Darth Fanboy]

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.

And what happens when no one wants to support the accused? Are going to force someone to do it?

You want to be the guy to step up when another Pat Kelly shows up?

[Sriad]

I support the ACLU IRL and I support this here: one voice of assent from the plebes in support of this office. This is useful on several levels:

-Gives defendants a designated contact rather than the vague suggestion "contact anyone." It's reasonable to think a newbie witnessing their first dozen posts raked over the coals would be reluctant to pester the board's Powers That Be.

-Playing Devil's Advocate is fun.

-Allows defense of people with reprehensible but possibly non-actionable views without requiring that a Senator stick his/her neck out:

Say someone got into a flame-war over whether lolicon is/should be constitutionally protected free speech in America. I can pretty easily imagine something like that blowing up to a Senatorial action level and general reluctance/squeemishness to point out any merits in the argument leading to an unjustly harsh punishment. An assigned defender could take that role without undercutting themselves with a bunch of "Not that I agree with the conclusions, but..." diplomatic bullshit.

And really, even though a super majority of people brought to criminal trial in the USA are guilty, if you suggested dispensing of defense attorneys you'd get a well deserved kick in the teeth. (the obvious differences between the board and real Justice Systems are here conceded.)

The minority of innocents deserves a guarantee of someone who will defend them, and the majority of guilty parties deserve an advocate to ensure their punishment isn't unjustly harsh.

[Coyote]

And what happens when no one wants to support the accused? Are going to force someone to do it?

You want to be the guy to step up when another Pat Kelly shows up?

Well, there's someone being annoyance for violating board rules, ie, debating like a turd, and then there's openly advocating an illegal act-- in PK's case, having sex with children.

I think common sense would kick in WRT advocating illegality and we'd just unass the person from the board-- in fact, I don't think we'd even get the benefit of a trial, show or not. Mike or one of the other Mods would just "disappear" another Pat Kelly.

[Darth Fanboy]

Fair enough, but what happens when someone comes along that nobody wants to defend.

I'd like to believe that this board doesn't need to require an appointed "Public Defender" when we already allow anyone to speak up on the behalf of people already.

[Captain Seafort]

Fair enough, but what happens when someone comes along that nobody wants to defend.

If someone that lacking in redeeming characteristics turns up I'd say there's a better chance of them getting an admin's boot up their arse than being hauled before the Senate.

[Coyote]

Fair enough, but what happens when someone comes along that nobody wants to defend.

I'd like to believe that this board doesn't need to require an appointed "Public Defender" when we already allow anyone to speak up on the behalf of people already.

Yeah, that's the thing-- most of the time (at least so far) people hauled up for punishment are pretty obviously guilty of one or more various rule violations. So in a way, it would really just be formalizing something that already takes place on its own.

I suppose in a case where you have a truly annoying person --someone you may not really want to defend-- you could at least try for a lessening of a punishment instead of trying to avoid punishment altogether. Say, arguing on behalf of a tempban, rather than a permaban.

The thing I note about the way punishments are handed out is that frequently a person hauled up before the Senate will do one of two things-- disappear on their own, or spaz out and 'go out in a blaze of glory'. I wonder if knowing that someone will argue on their behalf might encourage them to remain calm in the hopes of avoiding punishment. Let's face it, as it stands, a lot of people who see their cases getting hauled up to the Senate pretty much just give up right there, 'cause they (probably knowingly) realize that the game is well and truly over.

[Mr. Coffee]

So let me see if I'm getting this right...

The idea here is to appoint a Senator to try and defend people that were dumb enough to get a punishment thread in the Senate started on them, even though so far the Senate actually has a good track record with punishing the guilty and leaving the not-so-guilty/innocent alone (one of the only things they actually get right). Can someone explain to me what purpose this would serve other than entertainment? because I'm not seeing an actual benefit here other then additional spectacle and drama. Yeah, I know someone's going to do "oh, well they can represent people so they don't get punished for youthful exuberance/being to stupid to read the rules", but that doesn't make any sense either as the Senate has pardoned morons for that in the past.

Seriously, can you fuckers knock it off with proposing useless shit already?

[Darth Fanboy]

So in a way, it would really just be formalizing something that already takes place on its own.

I had a longer post, but I think this line speaks for itself. Why do we need to formalize something already being done?

[Kuja]

So let me see if I'm getting this right...

The idea here is to appoint a Senator to try and defend people that were dumb enough to get a punishment thread in the Senate started on them, even though so far the Senate actually has a good track record with punishing the guilty and leaving the not-so-guilty/innocent alone (one of the only things they actually get right). Can someone explain to me what purpose this would serve other than entertainment? because I'm not seeing an actual benefit here other then additional spectacle and drama. Yeah, I know someone's going to do "oh, well they can represent people so they don't get punished for youthful exuberance/being to stupid to read the rules", but that doesn't make any sense either as the Senate has pardoned morons for that in the past.

Seriously, can you fuckers knock it off with proposing useless shit already?

I agree with Coffee here - not only would the idea needlessly over-formalize and complicate the banning process, it would also throw open the door to slimeballs trying to use their advocate as a mouthpiece and dragging as much of the board into dramatics as they can, something we certainly don't need.

[Coyote]

So in a way, it would really just be formalizing something that already takes place on its own.

I had a longer post, but I think this line speaks for itself. Why do we need to formalize something already being done?

I don't think we do, which is why I'm not really very enthusiastic about the idea. It's a nice thought, but un-needed.

[aerius]

So let me see if I'm getting this right...

The idea here is to appoint a Senator to try and defend people that were dumb enough to get a punishment thread in the Senate started on them, even though so far the Senate actually has a good track record with punishing the guilty and leaving the not-so-guilty/innocent alone (one of the only things they actually get right). Can someone explain to me what purpose this would serve other than entertainment? because I'm not seeing an actual benefit here other then additional spectacle and drama. Yeah, I know someone's going to do "oh, well they can represent people so they don't get punished for youthful exuberance/being to stupid to read the rules", but that doesn't make any sense either as the Senate has pardoned morons for that in the past.

Seriously, can you fuckers knock it off with proposing useless shit already?

Bingo. Has anyone ever been whacked and banned because they were too scared to ask for help? Would any of the assmonkeys in Parting Shots still be here if only they had the guts to ask a Senator to speak for them? I sure as hell can't think one.

[Hotfoot]

I'm going to personally file this under "Nice idea, but no thanks".

1. It slows down the process with needless argumentation, only adding to the spectacle in many cases.
2. If people will do it, they'll do it. If someone's not worth banning, usually people speak up. Hell, I've defended wastes of data on this board before, only to turn around and call for their immediate banning, because whatever good will or understanding I had once kept was spent by their continuing to do especially stupid things.

I would, however, support HoC threads concurrent with Senate threads regarding banning, to get a general public opinion as well as giving the accused a place to publicly defend themselves.

[irishmick79]

I don't think that having a formal position like this would serve much, since most of the banning polls brought before the Senate involve outright trolls or posters engaging in fairly egregious conduct. It seems that most of the cases are pretty much open and shut.

It might be more useful to have an avenue where a regular member might be able to plea bargain on somebody's behalf down to a lesser charge or something like that, if the senate is really divided on a particular case. Maybe there should be some sort of 'named' list in the HoC, where if the senate cannot or will not take action on a particular case, they can refer it to the HoC to decide if an individual should just be 'named' instead.

If a poster is 'named', they're put on a list in the HoC and they have their posting rights restricted to the Hall of Shame for a period of time. That way, they can still view the board, participate to a degree, and if they decide to be an idiot, they're already locked in the HoS. And we get the entertainment of watching them get horsmanized if their foolish enough.

[Mr. Coffee]

blah blah blah

Ok, which part of "this is a pointless waste of time that will only serve to generate more drama just for the sake of spectacle and make the punishment process even more cumbersome" isn't getting through to you? This proposal is completely worthless and only serves to demonstrate just how entirely right certain Mods and Senators were when they said giving the "plebes" a voice was a retarded idea.

[irishmick79]

blah blah blah

Ok, which part of "this is a pointless waste of time that will only serve to generate more drama just for the sake of spectacle and make the punishment process even more cumbersome" isn't getting through to you? This proposal is completely worthless and only serves to demonstrate just how entirely right certain Mods and Senators were when they said giving the "plebes" a voice was a retarded idea.

Fuck you too.

If the horsemen are going to be revitalized, might as well give them something to do. Letting the HoC send somebody into the Hall of Shame would probably be a stronger repudiation than a title or something from the senate, since everybody on the board can speak out in the HoC. It would be harder for a poster to write off a punishment as being mere persecution from a handful of people in the senate. If serving time in the HoS doesn't change a poster's conduct, then a mod could simply ban them for a later offense.

[Mr. Coffee]

Fuck you too.

Wow, you really have no fucking clue at all, do you?

If the horsemen are going to be revitalized, might as well give them something to do.

Which is completely different from what you suggested previously, but why quibble about petty details when you can back peddle furiously and move goal posts.

Letting the HoC send somebody into the Hall of Shame would probably be a stronger repudiation than a title or something from the senate, since everybody on the board can speak out in the HoC.

Yes, let's give the ability to send people to HoS as a punishment to the mob. That's fucking brilliant there, boy genius. Hell, while we're at it let's bring back public ban and title polls and we can completely drench the board in enough Drama that passers by mistake us for a nerd-core LiveJournal community.

It would be harder for a poster to write off a punishment as being mere persecution from a handful of people in the senate. If serving time in the HoS doesn't change a poster's conduct, then a mod could simply ban them for a later offense.

Wow, so your solution to cut down on drama and make governance of the board more efficient is to take us back to the days of mob rule horseshittery and secretive Moderator back channel dealings.

Seriously, stop posting ideas, because everything you've "proposed" so far has been more retarded then Trig Palin.

[irishmick79]

Ok, I get it. I'm out. Fuck this shit.

[irishmick79]

Yeah. If somebody wants to call my idea stupid, I'm cool with that. Just explain to me why, and I'll go back and work on it. Frankly, I thought the whole point was to brainstorm ideas to make this place better/more entertaining. Shouldn't be a surprise if some of them suck.

[Coyote]

Rising to bait is definitely NOT productive. Remember, not every question is an invitation to attack.

Coffee, I'd like to hear your ideas-- not just some general "how to improve the board" stuff but what you think may be problematic-- or if it really is nothing more serious than a band of people being overly dramatic over nothing of real importance.

For everyone-- Deep at the heart of all this, after all, is the distinct possibility that there is not "board problem" or "culture" issue. It's just a bunch of people have gotten along and found that not everyone sings "kum-by-yah" on the same key, and some folks are a bit put out about that. The possibility that we are "over-thinking" everything looms large.

[Mr. Coffee]

This isn't useful. If someone posts a stupid idea, call it a stupid idea and explain why it is stupid (which you did in later posts, snipped out of the above quotes), then leave it at that. There is no need to call for anyone's silence like this and it is more than likely counter-productive.

I've explained why this thread's concept is a bad idea. Then I've re-explained it to people that didn't get it the first time I explained why it's a dumb fucking idea. Now I'm having to be super obvious about it and use small words because some fuckers around here were to dense to get it the first two times I explained it.

Yeah. If somebody wants to call my idea stupid, I'm cool with that. Just explain to me why, and I'll go back and work on it. Frankly, I thought the whole point was to brainstorm ideas to make this place better/more entertaining. Shouldn't be a surprise if some of them suck.

I did explain why this was a bad idea. Then you come up with the EXACT SAME IDEA only slightly reworded. When I pointed out again why it was a bad idea, you decided to play movable goal posts and invent some retarded shit about it being about creating horseman fodder and going back to what is essentially public ban polls.

Also, if the point of this sub-forum is to figure out ways to improve the board, then why is it that the bulk of ideas offered so far either increase drama (bad thing), increase bureaucracy (bad thing), or are just woo-woo populist bullshit? This thread is a perfect example of all three.

Coffee, I'd like to hear your ideas-- not just some general "how to improve the board" stuff but what you think may be problematic-- or if it really is nothing more serious than a band of people being overly dramatic over nothing of real importance.

It's pretty goddamned obvious what needs to be done (more mods, a return to enforcing the board rules, and the use of temp-bands instead of straight to perma-ban), and those ideas have been brought up, solotions have been pointed out, and now we're pretty much just waiting for the Senate to get off it's duff and re-discuss what's been discussed or for a couple of Mods to just go ahead and make it happen...

Problem is, the good ideas in this sub-forum are rapidly drowning in a sea of bullshit like this thread. So once again, can we knock it off with the ideas that just make the problem worse. Before you post a proposal, think about it.

Here's a helpful set of questions people can ask before wasting our time with Bad Ideas:

1. Does the proposal add another layer of bureaucracy? If yes, then it's a Bad Idea. If no, go to #2.

2. Will the proposal create more drama just for the sake of entertainment? If yes, then it's a Bad Idea. In no, go to #3.

3. Will the proposal actually help streamline any processes, stimulate fresh debate without creating drama, and/or ease the burden of running the board? If no, then it's not useful. If yes, go ahead and post your idea.

See how easy that is? Fuck, I could come up with shit like that all day long. But since people seem to loves them some drama around here, no one will listen. So instead of posting my ideas, I've instead decided that every time someone posts a Bad Idea here, I'm going to point out why it's a Bad Idea. if they don't listen the first time, I'll explain it again, only a little more forcefully. If they still don't get it, I'll explain it again along with why I think that person is the most retarded thing to hit the internet since YTMND. Just doing my part to make the board a cleaner, friendly, less drama shitting place for all of use to come together and debate things.

[irishmick79]

Well, I didn't backpedal as much as I failed to articulate my proposal well (which, btw, I'm abandoning since it's a waste of time).

I find myself in agreement with much of Mr. Coffee's main point about adding bureaucracy. Still, what I don't see is why the HoC should be completely excluded from helping to administer the board. If anything, it's a potential pool for mod recruits, and if given a degree of power could be able to act on issues that the senate isn't willing to or is unable to act. If you can develop a way for the senate or mods to reel in any excess, I don't see why the HoC couldn't play some role.

[ray245]

This isn't useful. If someone posts a stupid idea, call it a stupid idea and explain why it is stupid (which you did in later posts, snipped out of the above quotes), then leave it at that. There is no need to call for anyone's silence like this and it is more than likely counter-productive.

I've explained why this thread's concept is a bad idea. Then I've re-explained it to people that didn't get it the first time I explained why it's a dumb fucking idea. Now I'm having to be super obvious about it and use small words because some fuckers around here were to dense to get it the first two times I explained it.

Yeah. If somebody wants to call my idea stupid, I'm cool with that. Just explain to me why, and I'll go back and work on it. Frankly, I thought the whole point was to brainstorm ideas to make this place better/more entertaining. Shouldn't be a surprise if some of them suck.

I did explain why this was a bad idea. Then you come up with the EXACT SAME IDEA only slightly reworded. When I pointed out again why it was a bad idea, you decided to play movable goal posts and invent some retarded shit about it being about creating horseman fodder and going back to what is essentially public ban polls.

Also, if the point of this sub-forum is to figure out ways to improve the board, then why is it that the bulk of ideas offered so far either increase drama (bad thing), increase bureaucracy (bad thing), or are just woo-woo populist bullshit? This thread is a perfect example of all three.

Coffee, I'd like to hear your ideas-- not just some general "how to improve the board" stuff but what you think may be problematic-- or if it really is nothing more serious than a band of people being overly dramatic over nothing of real importance.

It's pretty goddamned obvious what needs to be done (more mods, a return to enforcing the board rules, and the use of temp-bands instead of straight to perma-ban), and those ideas have been brought up, solotions have been pointed out, and now we're pretty much just waiting for the Senate to get off it's duff and re-discuss what's been discussed or for a couple of Mods to just go ahead and make it happen...

Problem is, the good ideas in this sub-forum are rapidly drowning in a sea of bullshit like this thread. So once again, can we knock it off with the ideas that just make the problem worse. Before you post a proposal, think about it.

Here's a helpful set of questions people can ask before wasting our time with Bad Ideas:

1. Does the proposal add another layer of bureaucracy? If yes, then it's a Bad Idea. If no, go to #2.

2. Will the proposal create more drama just for the sake of entertainment? If yes, then it's a Bad Idea. In no, go to #3.

3. Will the proposal actually help streamline any processes, stimulate fresh debate without creating drama, and/or ease the burden of running the board? If no, then it's not useful. If yes, go ahead and post your idea.

See how easy that is? Fuck, I could come up with shit like that all day long. But since people seem to loves them some drama around here, no one will listen. So instead of posting my ideas, I've instead decided that every time someone posts a Bad Idea here, I'm going to point out why it's a Bad Idea. if they don't listen the first time, I'll explain it again, only a little more forcefully. If they still don't get it, I'll explain it again along with why I think that person is the most retarded thing to hit the internet since YTMND. Just doing my part to make the board a cleaner, friendly, less drama shitting place for all of use to come together and debate things.

Sure, we always need an opposition around in policy making areas and etc. Perhaps you should be nominated into the Senate. ( I am not joking.)

Although Coffee, you could point out what existing problem the board have, besides what you have said just now. I am not asking you create of draft a new policy. Instead, I am asking you to bring forward any other problem that we did not pay attention to.

[Coyote]

Dude, he just laid everything out all plain and in the open-like!

[ray245]

Dude, he just laid everything out all plain and in the open-like!

I'm asking about any OTHER problem the board has.

[Coyote]

I feel like you're over-thinking it, but be my guest. Things here are a lot more obvious and easily accessable than folks believe.

People want to feel important, so drama is invented. Sometimes, even, opposition is created for the sake of making a voice. Molehills become mountains. Mountains become soapboxes, which become (possibly) redundant forums, subforums, and so on to fill preceived needs-- well, at least here, in our environment. One of th ereasons I want to have all this out here is... to get it all out. And put some, hopefully most, of it to rest so we can get ready for the next round of drama.

Since Mr. Coffee already laid out what he thinks is needed-- and since it already jives with what is being done here, ie, more mods, more usage of temp bans to permbans, and so on (for example), then let's concentrate energies on that for now while considering the other courses of action under consideration.