I don’t believe this was suggested before, however It sprung to me as a thought and I wanted to share it with the community. As someone stated before, it would
We should allow a special amount of people on Mc-Market to be elected as a jury for reports and disputes. If users did not accept the invitation, then another user will be invited. These invitations wouldn’t be sent to people with the most reputation, messages, or reactions. The invitations would be partially based off activity. This would result in the community to decide weather or not the user was guilty, or not based off viable evidence. This is a marketplace, so peers should be able to judge the outcome of others. Weather it be simply not dealing with them, or even as far as deciding as a whole to remove someone from mc-market.
When deciding the jury, it will be at random. Staff will pool the community on values that deemed fit for the job, and then place them into a “hat”. Periodically these jury memebers will be rechecked to see if they still qualify for that position. If they no longer do, they will be removed. When the decision is made to pull the jury, it will be extracted at random from the “hat” and they will be asked if they could work under the case. If they can, they will be provided the details and given the information. If there is any probably cause that someone accepted the invitation, that is friends with that user, that skewed the decision of the user that resulted in an unjustified ban/keep then the user should be punished acoording to rules. Either that by permanent removal of jury status, warning, or ban. Otherwise, if they can’t then they will be placed back in the hat.
I understand this is basically how it already is. The community already gives their opinion freely without needing a jury, and having a jury could potentially backlog this, however this is in time an idea that could potentially grow. A jury would only be elected on a case whenever a staff member can’t either A) decide through evidence weather or not. B) The backlog of the reports / rep dispustes reach a considerably high amount that is deemed as an overflow.
As far as someone to manage the jury, there would be a need to hire an additional staff member to handle this. I would highly suggest Louwtjie for this position. He is the most knowledgeable, and qualified for this position.
Took a whole class period to write this, will add more later. Tell me your thoughts!
We should allow a special amount of people on Mc-Market to be elected as a jury for reports and disputes. If users did not accept the invitation, then another user will be invited. These invitations wouldn’t be sent to people with the most reputation, messages, or reactions. The invitations would be partially based off activity. This would result in the community to decide weather or not the user was guilty, or not based off viable evidence. This is a marketplace, so peers should be able to judge the outcome of others. Weather it be simply not dealing with them, or even as far as deciding as a whole to remove someone from mc-market.
When deciding the jury, it will be at random. Staff will pool the community on values that deemed fit for the job, and then place them into a “hat”. Periodically these jury memebers will be rechecked to see if they still qualify for that position. If they no longer do, they will be removed. When the decision is made to pull the jury, it will be extracted at random from the “hat” and they will be asked if they could work under the case. If they can, they will be provided the details and given the information. If there is any probably cause that someone accepted the invitation, that is friends with that user, that skewed the decision of the user that resulted in an unjustified ban/keep then the user should be punished acoording to rules. Either that by permanent removal of jury status, warning, or ban. Otherwise, if they can’t then they will be placed back in the hat.
I understand this is basically how it already is. The community already gives their opinion freely without needing a jury, and having a jury could potentially backlog this, however this is in time an idea that could potentially grow. A jury would only be elected on a case whenever a staff member can’t either A) decide through evidence weather or not. B) The backlog of the reports / rep dispustes reach a considerably high amount that is deemed as an overflow.
As far as someone to manage the jury, there would be a need to hire an additional staff member to handle this. I would highly suggest Louwtjie for this position. He is the most knowledgeable, and qualified for this position.
Took a whole class period to write this, will add more later. Tell me your thoughts!
- Type
- Suggestion
- Status
- Denied
