Suggestion: The Right to a Fair Trial

Oh Che, you loveable scamp. Threatening to kill us all.

im not sure if this has been brought up before but why cant we make the thread where mods deliberate on banning someone available for everyone else to see but not post in? that way regular forum goers can see the arguments for and against banning someone that the mods make and if they have a problem with it they can open their own thread here in the Assembly and talk about it.

The two primary issues with this are that 1) we post the details of the violation, which can include material banned from viewing, and 2) everyone is guaranteed a measure of privacy. Practically though I can only see massive shitstorms developing every time someone gets warned or banned because some people don't think it's fair.

No. For one it is a private case between the staff and the user, your only access to it is the Tribunes who can see that it is handled fairly. Even Stalin was against this. That is why it was made this way. It is not the business of the rest of the forum. What points are brought up and discussed, who is for and against it, this is not something the public needs to see. The debate is not the final decision and only the final decision matters and only the final decision will be known. When a ban comes around almost the entire staff has to agree on it. While we do provide details to the accused we do not provide the names of the mods for and against it, this could lead to targeting them.
Edit: Also...
Tribune Restrictions:

A tribune will have the same power as mods for the duration of their term. Tribunes are allowed to make rule changes and reformations public. They may not, however, make public appeals for rule breakers to the staff. These issues are between the person in question and the staff member are not the business of the forums. Any tribune doing this will loss their title and be banned from the forums for a week.

Have you guys ever even listened to my suggestions?
Simply ask the person in question if they're ok with the thread being made public, if they say yes, then make it public. If they say no then don't. This isn't rocket science.

And it's entirly our bussiness to understand how our Forum's law is enforced, down to the littlest detail.

Yes, I am defending Che. That's why I'm saying he's innocent of rule breaking and wrong.
I don't see the comedy of your terrible actions and opinions, nor do I see how insulting my arguement helps bring a just status to the Forums.

Through Che's eyes, they're not innocent. They're dictators of the market. They make people work at 10 cents an hour so they can have 5 mansions and a vacation home in France. Che offers them a peaceful alternative, but as they refuse it time and time again, violence is the last resort for freedom.

"Those who make peaceful revolution inmpossible, will make violent revolution inevidable."

He's totally not. Even if you want to defend his hate speech he's still advocating criminal action and insulting users.

I like how you try to defend Che even though he wants to kill you.

Again, for the 3rd time, stop trying to appeal to him for Minecraft.

In spite of everything, I still believe that Che is good at heart.

I don't know about Criminal Action, but it's a pretty big mess if your going to take on insulting users. Hell, Stalin would have a week ban or so.
I'd have to take a look at it in a Criminal Action light to really see how it is. Ever since someone, maybe Lenin Cat idk, was advocating killing the entire British Royal Family I never really considered that a rule.

What a load of bullshit. Inquisitor calls him a loud mouth white boy who is nothing but a lot of talk and you instantly blaim Che? Stop using a double-standard for those you like and infract Inquisitor for user-insults.

Che is in a rage of anger, of course he will say something stupid. If I quoted everyone every time they got angry as though they were completly serious we'd all be called for Hate Speech.

Never the less, Che has been insulted, badgered, discredited, and denyed justice time and time again by our government which then so hyprocritically says it defends the rights of people. His utopia, beliefs, and self have been insulted for voicing them, and when he finally snaps it's all Che's fault? Che basiclly said fuck you in a serious text, you just hate him and his ideals so much you want to interpit it as though he wants the brutal and mercilles butcering of every last person on the forums.

Everyone's beliefs are equally open to praise and ridicule. Don't say ignorant things and you'll generally receive a warm welcome. Hell, even that fascist guy got a pretty good reception despite being on the opposite end of the political spectrum to literally everyone except Kommunisten and Blazer.

Well, yes it is entirely his fault. No one forces anyone to post anything. Responding with hate speech and personal insults is not okay. But in any case I think it's pretty safe to say that Che hasn't snapped since coming to the site. Right from day one he's supported American genocide.

That's not what he said, nor is it even comparable to what he said, and either way he's personally insulted people.

He pretty much said that verbatim.

Damnit Kal, you and your logical arguements.
Well, I got nothing to save Che. Also, Che, seriously, how bad can you screw up? I mean Jesus Christ, you fucked up pretty badly.

And this is why if we let the users defend the accused it would be bad. Because you have people like Kara defending people who are so clearly breaking the rules (wishing death on the members of this forum, I mean really, come on) just for the sake of defending them.

i like how Kara's defense of Che is basically an insanity plea: "no its ok that he threatens people! in his mind hes right and we're all rats."

It's only a matter of time before someone invokes the "Twinkie defense (a catchall term coined by reporters during their coverage of the trial of defendant Dan White for the murders of San Francisco city supervisor Harvey Milk and mayor George Moscone. White's defense was that he suffered diminished capacity as a result of his depression. His change in diet from health food to Twinkies and other sugary food was said to be a symptom of depression. This defense is a claim that sugary food was not itself responsible for White's criminal behavior, but rather that it was a symptom of depression, which was the underlying cause. White was convicted of voluntary manslaughter.)

Infractions for all!

I support this, even if it earns me an infraction. We can't afford to be hypocrites.

Actually it's more evidence why you should. If you hadn't let me then there would be people like me, Bur, and SovietUSSR saying that Che never got a chance and tha if he did he would've been found innocent.

But you already knew he was guilty, so just by giving us our "shot" you can silence the questioning and justify the banning at the same time.
Apparently you just can't put the puzzel pieces together.

And no, it was more that even though Che says some crazy shit, bannising him eternally seems to extreme. You don't care though because it'll never be your head on the choping block, just someone you don't like's head. It's stupid shit like you do that causes me to want to defend Che. Kal can actually put out a decisive arguement, you can only throw quotes from Che and hope they succeed. Of course, you then bash the other side too which will only agrivate them more.

You're your own enemy, in a matter of speaking.

If Che reports them then yes. As it stands Che has been reported by those he has insulted. He has also made many genocidal comments. For insults they have to be reported by the insulted user.

Just one example of Che's commentary of late.

[spoiler:2i002hn0]

[/spoiler:2i002hn0]
This is just one of the three threads too, and I didn't even go all the way through it, just the first 6-7 pages.

Until people will understand Che they will only be able to hate him.

Where does it say that in the rules?

Ya, I think we finally agreed Che has no hope left. I think he can still inflict vengence and get some insulting users infractions up though.

No, it will just prolong the issue leaving the user free to continue their mess. Che has had many chances to clean up his act, he refuses, it is not too extreme to permanently ban someone like that when all they do is constantly cause trouble and have no intention of ever stopping. I do more than just throw quotes but the quotes speak for themselves. Any rational person would see that they are clearly way out of line. Defending him because "he doesn't see it as wrong" is not right, it is both against the rules and just fucking horrible to be wishing for genocide right and left and calling for the deaths of the people on this forum. Che is so clearly guilty, he leaves the evidence everywhere, if people like you wouldn't cause shit over clear issues such as this then there would be no problems.