Suggestion: The Right to a Fair Trial

It's not ridiculous at all to have a fair trial before being banned eternally Why would you think it was?

What the fuck are you talking about Juries? Is this why all my suggestions fail? You guys just assume things that don't exist because I vaugly mention them in a post pages back?

Your other forum sucks. Sounds like what we would've been if we hadn't had that Fantasyland conspiracy.

A country wouldn't do good if it was as lenient as Kara. He is for letting most things go, hardly any rules.

Like i said he would fail.

I agree it does suck and I was mentioning it to show how damn good you have it here and no, that is not how it would have been, at all. Were you banned for those reasons before? No!

Oh, then why did you suggest it if you knew I would fail at it?

1. It must take some odd eyes to see the World in black and white.
2. Read 1.
3. Read 1.

If this forum has Juries then we will need to elect them and extend the bureaucracy That apperantly everyone hates so much.

Ya, America would suck.

At least your a minority.

Right, well trials aren't exactly feasible because there are never any questions of fact that need to be addressed, and that's pretty much the whole point of having a jury in the first place. We have a log of all actions committed, at what time, "where," and to whom, as well as the text that comes about from communication, so the only questions that arise when we infract someone are ones of procedure/rules. These questions are not handled by juries or the public, but by ourselves, judges/mods.

Appeals are okay because they're meant to question procedure/rules and our application of them, but whether or not someone is guilty is 100% apparent.

Why we refuse to acknowledge that this is subject to change boggles my mind.

If it goes that far i would quit the fucking fourms cause thats to damn much.

Yes,!
Wait no!

Juries would suck.

But since I probably will have to make a Jury system because I'll get challenged on it a bunch, here's a system:
The Jury is 4 people. 2 are Tribunes, 2 are Mods. The Mods work on a cycle where every different case a new 2 mods must serve. Tribunes would be perminent.
The result would have to be unanimous to end. If the trial is hung for a week here is what would happen:
If there are three people voting oneway and one voting the other, the three people take majority and decide in that favor. If it is a 50/50 split Stalin will review the evidence and make an executive decision.

Actually come to think of it that actually works. Oh well, to bad I could never convince you guys of that because everything I say is automatically loony and not worth listening to.

You know what. We don't need Juries.

OMC kara dont you think the mods are busy with more important SHIT.

Guys, I don't think we should be treating this like a real world event... I mean it's just a forum, so this is a rather stupid idea.

Why should we presume innocence when we can know for certain whether or not they are guilty? And if we know they are guilty, what is the point of a trial at all?

Thank you JayJay.
@ Kala i couldent agree more.

I agree with Jay.

I agree with the Undead Roman above me

I come here to pass by time and say whats on my mind. I dont have the Mental capacity to Care what the Mods do or Ban and if I am eventually Banned Meh.