Moderator: Light
But yeah, jury is usually neutral to defendant and any possible bias eliminates them from conducting the ruling. bro, seeing as you haven't been around here very long, I'll point out that we use median values, not mode, when determining the result of a non-binary vote. We have been doing it this way for years because that represents the community's wishes more accurately.dinobro wrote:You're ignoring the fact that entire process is flawed from the beginning to the end. Like, hell, sum of months people voted for is 98, divide that by 11 votes it gives 8,9 months. So, the most logical way would be to ban a person for 9 months, not 12. It doesn't make sense, and of course, most people will argue it does simply because person who was vote conducted against rub a lot of people wrong on a personal level.
You know who told us? We told us, after trial and error and many, many discussions of how to accurately represent the wishes of this community. So, don't think you know better than the community that governs itself well. There is a reason Ladle has been played for nearly 8 years. We have policies and an infrastructure that works.dinobro wrote:I don't know who taught you that median would represent group's wishes more accurately, but it's quite wrong.
Are you volunteering? If not, then you know where the door is.dinobro wrote:If someone thinks it's that much of a drag, is obviously not cut to be responsible for that role.
Please show us one system, anywhere in the world, throughout all of history, that is free of bias and is also a viable model for this community.dinobro wrote:You really have to ask yourself one simple question - is current system allowing bias towards certain people (positive or negative) altering the finish result of a trail?
None of what we are discussing is a game. Rules and relationships are not a game. This is real life.dinobro wrote:Don't compare real life to a game, it's a little silly
Idealism. There is no possibility of a neutral jury in a community this small.dinobro wrote:But yeah, jury is usually neutral to defendant and any possible bias eliminates them from conducting the ruling.
Plus, why would anyone even assume that if we had more voters, they were less biased towards Lizmatic than the team leaders themselves? I don't know about you, but if I was going to get banned, I'd prefer a small, reasonable council over the angry mob to decide my fate. What makes you think more voters are automatically more favorable towards her, of all people? I guess the probability to get sanctioned in the worst way possible increases with the number of people participating (then we can do the whole thing like the ice bucket challenge and its likes already...).sinewav wrote:Idealism. There is no possibility of a neutral jury in a community this small.dinobro wrote:But yeah, jury is usually neutral to defendant and any possible bias eliminates them from conducting the ruling.
Sure, let the guy who always stood up against everyone for Liz be the referee of Liz's trial. No bias for sure...dinobro wrote:If you are willing to trust me with that role, I don't see why not.
I have never said that more complex voting will get more accurate results, no idea where did you get that from
You think that some kind of popular vote would make the result less biased, to which I replied that it probably won't, even if one takes into account what you said afterwards. The pressure of making a decision for a group you depend on makes you think about your vote. If you are a random player who doesn't know Liz or has no real knowledge of what she did (and even ask others how they voted, they'll most likely tell you the same), you should not have a vote - because you're just noise. Another point that hasn't been brought up yet: How many of the ladle participants are younger than 18? Do you think they all have the best of the tournament or the most balanced way to treat Lizmatic in mind? Granted, the same applies for some of the more mature community members, but picking just the most relevant, experienced people of the tournament (as far as that can be measured...) makes the decision more reasonable in my opinion. They are the people who deserve to have a say who can play on their teams and in their servers because they put their effort in that. If their players disagree and want to show that their opinion matters, they simply have to become more relevant to the tournament.Oh, I think the size of our community allows us to have more direct type of democracy. Main reason, everyone gets an actual, not influenced vote. It's one thing to vote by yourself, other being in a group that your vote can be influenced by. For example, you vote differently than you really think not to get ostracized by your teammates/teamleader, especially in small, knit communities where everyone knows everyone and there are tensions between certain people. It forces you to choose one over another which completely ruins the purpose of democratic vote.
Except that everyone thought the previous system was shit. Can you convince us otherwise? As I said, I liked how the old system worked, but it was overly complicated and too lenient and the punishments (like losing team leader status) were no deterrent.dinobro wrote:The fact that you can't come with something perfect doesn't mean you need to settle for shit.
You're correct that it is far from equivalent to a trial as held after a crime. One such trial would determine what the state should do, perhaps keep the culprit away from society for a while. Therefore representatives are selected for the whole society, and therefore they are meant to be unbiased toward any party in trial.dinobro wrote:Just FYI:
You all talk of how "it's not us, it's community ruling!". It's not. You only take votes from team leaders and ignoring voice of all the players, spectators and other, as you called them, ladle enthusiasts. So yeah, letting team leaders who might have interest in getting rid of someone (banning a good player to increase their clan chances in next ladle perhaps?) do all the ruling.
So please, stop overusing "community". Community as a whole has no say in the matter. All the rules are enforced by biased people with their own interests. I'm not saying you're all vicious and biased, but can you vouch for everyone else? If you think you can, you're incredibly silly. It's nothing like a jury. Jury, people who decide of the guilt, should be unbiased towards the accused person and have no personal interest in conducting a punishment. As Lowkey said, you DON'T EVEN HAVE an appeal process...
