AAFitz wrote:There is a lot of merit to this, for many reasons. However, the process is like this, so other voices may be heard. Admittedly not all are relevant, but if others noticed similar behavior it is presented, and if others can show its false, it is also helpful.
Its community policing. Typically its obvious if the accusation is pointless, and the accuser looks bad. Mostly the accusation is for a multi, which typically is not meant to be personal, and an apology should usually follow, and for other cases that get more complex, well, while the opinions may not sway the multihunter, they certainly let the community chime in on how they view it, which is kind of the point for most of them.
I think perhaps a stricter policy towards flaming and spamming might be better, but that just causes more work, so really, all you have to do is ignore the useless posts, and the process works fine. Locking the thread would probably do the accused more harm than good alot of times, especially if they are completely innocent.
Well, I do agree to some point if not all. I know useless posts and threads take alot of energy from the mods, perhaps it has contribute to the recent debacle in the forum.
If more facts and thought would go into the first post I think we can get a more clear regulation. I have understod that in many cases (not all of course but some) The multihunters or abusehunter only skimread (if even that) the thread so perhaps this is not necessary.
But my second point is still valid (even though I still havent abandoned my first).
I think in order to make everything more fair, it is best to let the accused address the accussation in the thread or to the hunters before any "judgement" is done.
And you might say; "fill in an eticket". But sadly it doesnt work so well. I think the mods are not eager to change a ruling they have made. It should be able to be heard at an early stage.
