Bottom post of the previous page:
First of all, good day, I welcome you to this discussion!As is currently policy, appeals of any kind are always made to the responsible administrator in question. In some circumstances, head administrators will overrule the decision that was made. A strict code of conduct is enforced, where parties not related to the case may only provide information (such as providing logs). As it is, the administrator issuing the punishment can fully approve or decline the appeal entirely on his own volition.
This system is by far not perfect. Administrators, particularly in highly emotional and stressful cases, are likely to have a very negative bias to the person that is appealing to them. In addition, there is no oversight in the entire process outside of head administrators intervening with their decision, which is known to take a substantial amount of time, specifically, several days to weeks. Outside of these interventions, which are arguably very sporadic, there is virtually no protective mechanism and legislative body that ensures that appeals are conducted in a fair manner to the person appealing.
I believe, these are concerns that warrant discussion for a new policy change.
This thread aims to discuss and answer the following points:
1. Is the tenet of neutrality upheld by administrators deciding their own appeals?
2. What role should administrators have in their own cases?
3. How would administrators be selected to stand in for these appeals?
4. Alternatively, should appeals be left in their current state, instead of introducing new structural changes, such as for example, a jury system?
Here, I would request everyone to please keep their tone civil and refrain from any insults and to provoke fights in this thread. I would like the points raised in the opening statement to be the central points guiding the discussion, and I am very much looking forward to your opinions and how this discussion will unfold!
With warm regards
-BONERMASTER