i agree up to a point. i feel the admin position is such a high level of responsibility i don’t want him putting himself in a position to ever risk the trust he’s built with the community by taking sides either with the mods or against the mods. because that’s ultimately how some members are going to see it when things get personal for them.
4 Likes
I agree 2/3 vote for mod and higher level for arbiter because arbiters should be people that would pass unanimously or almost unanimous. I’m a believer that once forum governance is officially setup, we don’t need to have transparency to the level it’s been up to now, because honestly who needs all these threads? I think we’re setting this up in a way that we’re entrusting the people chosen to use their best judgment on decisions for the good of the community.
Yeah if the admins don’t want responsibility beyond technical stuff, then let’s keep them out of it. 100% agree with what you and ggoreo are posting on this subject.
2 Likes
I’m just thinking one thread: the locked key moderator decisions thread where moderation decisions are documented. I think that’s important.
Then you can appeal to the arbiters, who can have their own threads for deciding the disputes. What do you think of the referendum step after that, I don’t think that it would be used often, if ever. But it would be a nice thing to have if there’s a sticky enough issue that needs to be resolved. I think the community would rubber stamp anything a beetlejuice led panel decides, but that mechanism being available might let off some steam if people feel like an important perspective is being ignored. Everyone would recognize a referendum that seeks to override two layers of impartial (hopefully) governance would be very difficult to succeed so I think it would be rare. And if it does succeed that probably means something is very out of whack with the selection of the impartial layers of governance.
1 Like
with a majority of members itt voting to support installing myself as pontifex maximus for life with no stipulated method of removing me, i think it’s EXTREMELY magnanimous of me to accept even a 75% threshold for removal of justices from the court.
i’m wary of this because i don’t want the court to be a political arena where justices are jockeying for support of the crowd instead of making unbiased (and sometimes perhaps unpopular) decisions. if we want to elect a senate to make decisions based on politics, that’s a separate thing. the judiciary should ideally be independent of that noise. a small council of respected forum members with mild autism who can make independent judgements in the best interest of the community is what we need.
5 Likes
I want to grow support for this concept to higher levels and i welcome discussion about how to improve the finer points to achieve more support, but considering the proposal as written has garnered a majority approval, we should fine tune what I’ve written instead of rewriting the concept from scratch.
Associate justices can be recalled by vote at which level?
- 51%
- 66%
- 75%
- 85%
- 90%
- Associate justices serve for life
- Associate justices can be put up for a recall vote only with unanimous consent of the other serving justices on the court
0 voters
i don’t think there is widespread support for a chief justice/associate justice structure
i support a structure with 3 equal arbiters
1 Like
My concern is that you’d have to be Literally Hitler to garner enough support for a 2/3rds threshold.
Candidates for associate justice will be nominated by
- The admin (majority vote if >1 admin)
- The admin (unanimous if >1 admin)
- The pontifex maximus
- Anyone
- Anyone + at least one serving mod
0 voters
Candidates for associate justice will be confirmed by a popular vote greater than:
- 50%
- 66%
- 75%
- 85%
- 90%
0 voters
We can work out the responsibilities of the pontifex maximus in here and stipulate them clearly in the full referendum.
Ultimately I feel there will be one among the justices who will handle organizational matters wrt the subforum
1 Like
I really wanted to answer 80% for this!
1 Like
That’s a fair point
Not sure how to answer this. I really like the idea of there being only 3 and that they be as impartial as possible and supported by a large majority of the community. I’d like turnover to be as little as possible in this position and likely only come from one of the three no longer wanting the job.
2 Likes
This might be the nerdiest thing I’ve ever seen in my life.
Daria had an episode where her parents created a family court as a way to punish their children for bed behavior. In the end, the system was so bad that the parents were being punished by the process and stopped it before the episode ended.
That’s how this will end. It’ll be another thing for trolls and drama queens to bitch and moan about until people wake up and drop this idea.
3 Likes
That’s why only beetlejuice is qualified to be chief justice. People would feel so bad bothering him and diverting him away from his other posting duties that they would only use the process when they feel very aggrieved.
3 Likes
with me as pontifex maximus, this forum will be respected again. the other forums are laughing at us right now with our current leadership. it’s a travesty, and only i can fix it.
7 Likes
and look, we’re not gonna get riverman to do it, ok? no one (willing to do this) is more widely respected (and, frankly, adored) than me.
6 Likes
So this is winning by a small but comfortable margin. Three more days and then poll officially closes, and if the lead holds the judicial branch becomes Official Forum Law. Exciting!