Danre
I come from the net
Show User Social Media
Hide User Social Media
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,158
- Age
- 36
[quote author=lost in thought link=topic=10889.msg137665#msg137665 date=1227233633]
@BlackWarGreymonX:
"to be honest, most people who voted aren't going to think about this in any detail. They will look at the poll tick a box based on a preconception of Vallant and move on."
And thats the rub right there, which trivializes an opportunity to actually give the members here the chance to vote on the outcome of a case, in a way akin to what a real jury might do. I think this also illustrates the problem, in that unlike the real court system, there is no stated liability for our community jury, should they commit perjury in judging a matter.
I am thinking the only way to make one of these work is to stipulate that should anyone vote out of benefit or favor, or vote without much thought and not supply a well thought defense of their position, I will ban them. Otherwise they would be free to not vote at all. It would probably kill off over half of the recognized involvement from past/current votes, but I think that would be a fair trade for attempting to make people define good reasons for why someone shouldn't be banned in the vote.
That, or forgo this entire process altogether and go about business as usual. 'Cause, clearly this isn't going to get us anywhere without making some kind of punishment for voting poorly.
[/quote]
I did think that maybe it should be required that people give some sort of reason as to why they vote yes or no in this kind of thing, something more complex than "He's my buddy" or "Eh, I don't like him", but that seems to defeat the point, since no one would vote.
If we're going to play mock court, I think we should appoint someone to play prosecutor and have the accused find a defendant. Have a full blown mock trial, do it right if we're going to do it at all.
If we're going to do this kind of thing, let's have fun with it.
@BlackWarGreymonX:
"to be honest, most people who voted aren't going to think about this in any detail. They will look at the poll tick a box based on a preconception of Vallant and move on."
And thats the rub right there, which trivializes an opportunity to actually give the members here the chance to vote on the outcome of a case, in a way akin to what a real jury might do. I think this also illustrates the problem, in that unlike the real court system, there is no stated liability for our community jury, should they commit perjury in judging a matter.
I am thinking the only way to make one of these work is to stipulate that should anyone vote out of benefit or favor, or vote without much thought and not supply a well thought defense of their position, I will ban them. Otherwise they would be free to not vote at all. It would probably kill off over half of the recognized involvement from past/current votes, but I think that would be a fair trade for attempting to make people define good reasons for why someone shouldn't be banned in the vote.
That, or forgo this entire process altogether and go about business as usual. 'Cause, clearly this isn't going to get us anywhere without making some kind of punishment for voting poorly.
[/quote]
I did think that maybe it should be required that people give some sort of reason as to why they vote yes or no in this kind of thing, something more complex than "He's my buddy" or "Eh, I don't like him", but that seems to defeat the point, since no one would vote.
If we're going to play mock court, I think we should appoint someone to play prosecutor and have the accused find a defendant. Have a full blown mock trial, do it right if we're going to do it at all.
If we're going to do this kind of thing, let's have fun with it.
