Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Survival of the Fittest, a RPing board loosely based off of Koshun Takami's Battle Royale, with its own unique plot and spin on the 'deadly game'. We've been around quite a while, and are now in our thirteenth year, so don't worry about us going anywhere any time soon!

If you're a newcomer and interested in joining, then please make sure you check out the rules. You may also want to read the FAQ, introduce yourself and stop by the chat to meet some of our members. If you're still not quite sure where to start, then we have a great New Member's Guide with a lot of useful information about getting going. Don't hesitate to PM a member of staff (they have purple usernames) if you have any questions about SOTF and how to get started!

Let the games begin!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Staff Responsibility/Accountability
Topic Started: May 30 2017, 02:31 PM (3,194 Views)
General Goose
Member Avatar
Don't cast aspersions on my asparagus.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Alright, so, I may well be wrong on my understanding of the particulars of this dispute, but if my understanding is correct, the two main arguments (or two of the major arguments) are 1) that handlers should not be punished for staff errors and should be able to trust the responses they receive from appeals, but 2) that reversing the reversal of the appeal "means that individual staffers from now on will have the power to arbitrarily and unilaterally grant appeals without staff discussion, and the remainder of staff won't be able to do anything about it" (I quite like zetsu's summaries of this whole business).

So, there's two principles that I find quite compelling that seem to be in conflict. We all want the site to be fair and the rules to be understandable and all of that, but both seem to me to be quite pertinent. I tend to think the first one should be given the priority in this particular case, as it seems to me the threat posed by the latter is, at the moment, more a hypothetical. I tend to, as Grim Wolf said, err on the side of leniency rather than stringency.

But, and again I do not know how the appeals work, but maybe a way to mitigate the risk of erroneous appeals in future would be to implement a kind of, I dunno, "stamping system" or something? So if an appeal, or similarly important staff decision, has been signed off by the requisite number of staff members, there can be an official signature or stamp or something included. So members can treat those decisions as binding, and know every other message from HELP on the subject is provisional or tentative or unofficial.
V7 peeps:
Nick Ogilvie
Ashlynn Martinek
Bill Winlock
Camille Bellegarde

V6 peeps:
Kiziah Saraki
Bradley Floyd
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
General Goose
Member Avatar
Don't cast aspersions on my asparagus.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Not a helpful post at all, RC. You can't bemoan drama and then say to just ignore staff rulings. If you want to set up an AU RP, fine, but please don't do that in this thread.
V7 peeps:
Nick Ogilvie
Ashlynn Martinek
Bill Winlock
Camille Bellegarde

V6 peeps:
Kiziah Saraki
Bradley Floyd
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Support/Suggestions · Next Topic »
Add Reply