@BlackWarGreymonX:
I don't agree with the transparency statement, because you can easily look at his posting history and find out all you need to know about him to make a critical decision in this case. As a member that is aware of the rules, it shouldn't necessarily be difficult to spot where someone completely ignores the rules.
But, if you don't feel this is enough information to provide an impartial judgment, then you're in the same way free to withhold judgment. I would rather see people saying "no comment", than "he's my friend" or "he's a big part of my rpg." Clearly in cases like these, a decision isn't made on any merit of value, but of favor and personal benefit.
Basically when you equate favor and benefit into the matter, all you've accomplished is that impartiality is doomed, and no 'fair' considerations can be made, good or bad. This leads back to my last point about it being a waste of time.
"I am willing to bet that the majority of mods etc voted for his banning whilst the majority of his supporters are non-mods."
I have no idea, while I was dangerously close to banning him, I couldn't care less how this ends- it just bothers me that people are so forgiving of prolonged actions, because of favor and benefit. It totally ruins any intent that was used in the making of the thread. Basically, once this ends, the results are already tainted by bias so the data is useless.
"My case in point being the newbie who voted to ban Vallant with a post count of 3. Unless this member is some kind of serial lurker they will not have the information necessary information to make any kind of judgement."
Although I don't necessarily disagree, as I pointed out earlier, there is enough information available through Vallant's posting history to use to form your opinion of him.
"For a balanced conclusion this poll should really have been taken by staff."
I can't say I agree, mostly because I think Vande's the only one who really cares whether or not he's banned, thanks to him pissing her off more than once. As for me, I am so bemused by banning people that at this point its just a routine that I don't even think about. That probably sounds mean, but... well, doing the job for a number of years has a way of numbing a person I find. So clearly I don't have any emotional stake in the matter, but I do know members still do, so it works as a threat.
Usually.
Of course, I can't say if Digistar and goc have any more care in the matter, but I doubt it.
@Danre:
"I don't really view these as real justice, no. It's more of... a popularity contest, for some people. If Vallant had done something truly outrageous, I think you higher-ups would have just agreed to ban him. The fact that he's having this mock trial indicates that his infractions, while ridiculously numerous, have been fairly minor."
I don't disagree, this is pretty much a sham. Like I pointed out, I was already close to banning him, but putting this topic up wasn't my idea- I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt one last time, and then when he antagonized another member, like he has been doing recently, I was just going to ban him, no fuss, no muss. Get on with my day.
But that doesn't necessarily invalidate his infractions, it just means that Vande managed to get approval for this before I got his next infraction. So I just sat back and watched this play out.
Of course, since she went to the trouble I'll (however briefly) abide by the results until he fucks up again, and I have no doubt in my mind that he will, but this is really just delaying the inevitable. I should hope this doesn't become a trend, it gets in the way of my routine.