Our moderator rules

[Kuukunen]

I have no idea [if you fairly banned DS or not]Exactly my point.
And that's just the thing.
It's impossible to have a good idea of these things after they happen because most of the evidence has been removed. (Just as planned?) And since it was you who removed it, one can only assume the evidence was harmful to you.

[Guest]

I answer to Doom9, not you. He has what he needs to reach any needed conclusion.

[Sharktooth]

And that's just the thing.
It's impossible to have a good idea of these things after they happen because most of the evidence has been removed. (Just as planned?) And since it was you who removed it, one can only assume the evidence was harmful to you.
nothing has been "hard deleted". doom9 has all "deleted" posts/thread available to him.

[Kuukunen]

nothing has been "hard deleted". doom9 has all "deleted" posts/thread available to him.
Meanwhile in another thread:
Unfortunately, the record keeping was done improperly... I only have posts that were removed (because I need to be able to follow what has transpired in the proper order, I have therefore rewritten the moderator rules so that they ask for exact record keeping

[Sharktooth]

he means he has all deleted posts but in the wrong order (meaning he doesnt know when the post x or y were deleted and in what situation). so he have to rebuild the order to understand what was going on. however, as i understood, no posts were deleted permanently.

[Guest]

That doesn't mean deleted. It means the order is hard to follow because they are not in their original location. They are now in Thread Moderation.

[Hagbard23]

Then please release your work (the "original" order of all deleted posts) to all of us to clarify the facts one for all time.

Mean: Show the deleted posts again so that all of us can take part in investigation what the thruth was...

... Or are you afraid of that?

Doom9 & Mods: Do you really think there is some kind of "control" at all, when you are not able to answer questions, because the things are out of "original order"? That sounds pretty sarcastic to me...you delete posts, and when the question appears if that was right or not, you "sorry" yourself with the fact, that you do not see clear through the "chaos" in your business?

If even the administrative has no idea of how the things really were, then the question comes to me: "Why are you doing so much effort on keeping information-control? And what is the actual effect of these efforts?"

Sorry - i don't wanna do harm on somebody - sorry if my words sound hard in someway.

[Sharktooth]

hagbard it's not physically possible. posts where moved from the original thread to the thread moderation. hence the record keeping was lost...

[Kuukunen]

he means he has all deleted posts but in the wrong order (meaning he doesnt know when the post x or y were deleted and in what situation). so he have to rebuild the order to understand what was going on. however, as i understood, no posts were deleted permanently.
Point was, in either case, it's not very "available" if it required rule changes to make it possible/feasible/easy to sort out what happened.

On the other hand, to non-mods it doesn't matter if it was hard or soft deletion. They can't see them anyway and pretty much have to form their opinions based on rumors and impressions.

[Astrophizz]

Well I saw most of the posts. I had to refresh fast though as they were being posted and deleted rather quickly. Basically neuron2 went OT in his own thread, said that nobody else could reply to the false OT statement within that thread, and punished anyone who did. Then several other people started new threads about the subject and he deleted those threads. As I recall not all of the new threads had insults. Komisar's thread OP was almost identical to some earlier (deleted) thread OPs.

[Doom9]

@Bi11: I like your court analogy... it probably makes more sense.
However, some of the rules governing the powers of a judge are intentionally overly general in order to allow for flexibility of powers in good faith (e.g. moderator rule 4 – “blow up in our faces”, moderator rule 11 – “side of caution” which contradicts taking proactive measures to "fish-out" downloaders of pirated content (which imo seems futile since the uploaders are the real 'criminals'). This means the head judge necessarily interprets those rules on a case-by-case basis, because they are too vague to be interpreted objectively.

Thus, the head judge is free to bend or even break those rules for a judge without the user having any recourse but to accept the ruling and associated consequences.You're right on the money with that. However, isn't that exactly how things run in the real world? Judges are usually appointed, not elected - same with our moderators. There is no recourse against a decision by the highest court - same here with administrative decisions. You will also not get the highest court to reverse a ruling just because you stage a protest in front of the court.
And, many laws are very much subject to interpretation. Especially new laws are often tested in court, and courts will come down on different sides of the issue. Until a matter gets decided by the highest court instance, you don't really know how the law is to be interpreted.

Dark Shikari and neuron2 make friends and all is well again with the world. Then one cloudy day...

n2: x264 is bs. (or some other opinion not based on facts)
ds: you're talking bs.

Now what?I don't think that will realistically happen. If it does, ds should lodge a complaint with me and I'd ask neuron2 to apologize and I fully expect he would. If not he'd be fired. Moderators can't go around starting fights.. they're supposed to moderate and mediate conflicts, not start them.

"Established members of the forum should be given the benefit of the doubt whenever conflicting statements are made between a moderator and one or more Established members. Thus, the onus is on moderators to prove their statements correct in face of continued protests by Established members, until almost all Established members involved in the debate are satisfied with the proof.
Non-established members are required to prove their statements correct if they continue to protest against the moderator's statements, until moderators, or at least Established members, are satisfied with the proof."
Interesting idea. I do however wonder if that's really feasible (for one, people live in different timezones, and not everybody can be expected to be visit within a given amount of time.) . Do you know of any forum that does things like that?

Overall, I yet have to see a forum that is run as a democracy- I'm not saying there are none, but I'd like to see a sizeable working forum where all associated costs are split in between the members (like taxes), and where moderators and admins are elected by popular vote. And even in a real world democracy - do you really get a say into most of the issues? Did you get to vote on whether your country ratify the WIPO treaties (source of DMCA style legislation)? Did you get a say on changes to copyright law over the last 20 years (including extensions of protection periods and the DMCA in all its flavors), did anybody get to vote no whether software patents are a good idea? Will we get to vote on the ACTA? Even the Swiss didn't get to vote in their DMCA flavor - and they have a direct democracy. In a parliamentary democracy, you only get to not vote for a politician in the next election.. and you got no say in what laws that politicians passes in the meantime.

Were the rules formally written before or only now due to the mess that that occurred? as per the first post, they did exist, but in shorter form. Much of it was informally discussed (mods generally bring up issues for review and we discuss handling of the situation internally.. I then decide how those things should be handled in the future).

So you make a decision based only on your own needs; you think only about yourself. What if a megui user/evangelist defends megui in stax's thread and got banned, would you turn a blind eye?Couldn't the guy who got striked / suspended (note that outright bands will only happen for obvious spammers, duplicate registrations and people who get suspended for the second time) defend himself? Nowadays, with each strike warning, you get the following piece of information with it
If you have any questions regarding strikes in general, this specific strike, or have an objection, please refer to our FAQ items on strikes (faq.php?faq=strikes#contest_strike)

Note that this warning has been dispatched from an anonymous account - you must follow the mechanisms outline in the FAQ to contest a strike. . So, nobody can claim they didn't know they had the right to an appeal, and how to make such an appeal. Likewise, nobody can claim he/she didn't ruin their chance to appeal.
If I'm a friend with our imaginary guy, I might ask him to start the appeals process and about the outcome. But if I disagree with the outcome, there is not much I can do. Since the admin is the final instance, if he has made his ruling, it's final. Public protest will not help - but it will only get me in trouble (rule 17).

Being given something for free is not a reason to hold your tongue. Shouldn't it be common courtesy though that you respect that free doesn't owe you anything? I mean.. that's exactly how it works with all this free (open source or not) software. You accuse the makers of screwing up, you bitch about them not helping you, and you'll be at the losing end of a potentially very ugly fight. Try your luck on many mailing lists for open source software - and suddenly you'll feell that n00bs are treated extremely welcome in this place.

Doom9 & Mods: Do you really think there is some kind of "control" at all, when you are not able to answer questionsI don't understand what is so hard to understand about me rescinding strikes. What does it mean if I don't let a strike stand? let me give you a hint.. I'm ruling agains the moderator. The member will be given an apology, and since he was the one that was wronged, that should be it. You do not deserve an apology if nothing was done against you, and if you need to take offense with everything, that's your problem. To get back to the MeGUI issue - if I'm just a regular member, is there really a need for me to take offense? I might disagree strongly, but there's no reason for me to feel personally attacked - so if the ruling is that the strike was inappropriate, I'm not owed an apology, be it private or public.
As I said before, and that's a core charater value where I'm from, I'm not going out stab my moderators in the back for the slightest mishap. I refuse to make a public statement calling moderator action wrong every time I rescind a strike. It is still my forum, and I will not betray my core beliefs. You can disagree with that all you want - but it is my prerogative, and I think it is highly inappropriate that you go to a foreign land and demand that people throw away pat of their culture and instead start doing it your way. I consider it common courtesy that you respect the way things are done if you are at somebody else's place, regardless of whether you'd do it the same or not.

[Astrophizz]

Doom9, how would the appeals process work well when it might be two weeks or longer before you return? I know you have a life and take vacations, etc. I'm not criticizing you for taking breaks, just saying it complicates matters.

[Doom9]

Doom9, how would the appeals process work well when it might be two weeks or longer before you return? I know you have a life and take vacations, etc. I'm not criticizing you for taking breaks, just saying it complicates matters. Good point... underscores the need for super moderators who could serve as an intermediate instance in case I'm not available for an extended period of time. In the meantime, unless I can convince Swede to act on my behalf when I'm not around, I don't have a solution at this point.

[Sharktooth]

i have... "promote" some users to moderators (ask the mods for possible canditates or make a thread).
after that make an internal votation and promote a couple of mods to supermods.

[HJRodrigo]

as per the first post, they did exist, but in shorter form. Much of it was informally discussed (mods generally bring up issues for review and we discuss handling of the situation internally.. I then decide how those things should be handled in the future).


Thanks for the reply, but I already knew rules existed. Sorry, I was not being very specific. I meant rules that would have prevented this from happening. I was curious if they already existed in written form and if they did then DS's contention that N2 broke a moderator rule was true. I don't know if DS was refering to a previously existing rule or a rule recently created due to this situation.

[Doom9]

I was curious if they already existed in written form and if they did then DS's contention that N2 broke a moderator rule was true. I don't know if DS was refering to a previously existing rule or a rule recently created due to this situation. The rule in question, number 8, was not formally part of the moderator rules. Something along the lines "if you get under personal attack, hand the thread off to another moderator" had been brought in a private discussion in the moderator forum. Those informal rulings in discussions on how to handle a thread should be followed (every moderator has to visit the moderator forum after all.. that part has always been in the mod rules), but it's easier if everything is put at one place.
It's a bit convoluted, I know.

[HJRodrigo]

The rule in question, number 8, was not formally part of the moderator rules. Something along the lines "if you get under personal attack, hand the thread off to another moderator" had been brought in a private discussion in the moderator forum. Those informal rulings in discussions on how to handle a thread should be followed (every moderator has to visit the moderator forum after all.. that part has always been in the mod rules), but it's easier if everything is put at one place.
It's a bit convoluted, I know.

Thank you for the clarification.

[Guest]

The rule in question, number 8, was not formally part of the moderator rules. Something along the lines "if you get under personal attack, hand the thread off to another moderator" had been brought in a private discussion in the moderator forum.. I'd like to remind you all that I called in 3 other mods in compliance with the guidelines in force at the time. Doom9 was one of them.

[Astrophizz]

Then it's a good thing there will probably be more mods soon. As I remember no other mods showed up (unless they were doing things but not posting).

[Sharktooth]

indeed. if neuron2 tried to contact 3 different mods and had no answer then he has much less responsibility in what happened.

[woah!]

i only have 1 thing to say really, this forum without neuron2 as a mod the last little while, would be a spam infested slag feast.... i dont know the guy at all, but the good stuff he does here, sure as hell outweighs some ego's around here...

[Doom9]

Mean: Show the deleted posts again so that all of us can take part in investigation what the thruth was...I believe I've found a way to piece it all together. It will take some time though (say a day) as the forum software has gotten more powerful over the years when edits are concerned, but unfortunately, the new functionality is a lot less transparent when it comes to restoring things.

[Guest]

hagbard it's not physically possible. posts where moved from the original thread to the thread moderation. hence the record keeping was lost... No that's not true. All the timing information is present. But like a small puzzle it has to be reassembled. Fortunately it's a very simple puzzle; even Doom10 members could figure it out.

[Astrophizz]

Nice nice little goading insult there ;)

[Guest]

I'm glad you noticed. Consider it a little pushback for the relentless tag-team attacks on me here from you guys, not to mention the vile attacks on me and Doom9 over at your place.

A little dry wit spices up the day, don't you think?

[Astrophizz]

I have an account there (under the same name) but I can't say I'm more active there than here so I won't claim to be an established member of their central crew. I did make a statement there that you might disagree with on some level but I didn't insult you. I think people said things there in retaliation for not being able to discuss the subject here until recently - that is until this thread that seems to be excluded from rule 17.

I saw most of the post "puzzle pieces" though while they were still in their assembled state and I share some sympathies with some people. Recent actions have eased my concerns a bit though and I'm looking forward to an expanded mod team.

[Guest]

@Astrophizz

You sound like a fine chap. Send me an email and I'll give you a free license to my licensed tools. :)

Your good will buys you priority access to me over IRC, email, and the forum.

[Bi11]

Doom9,
Thanks for the willingness to discuss these matters with members. I know there are administrators on other boards who completely ignore members, yet some of those boards still somehow manage to thrive.

I wrote a long response but in the end I realized I was just pulling straws. You can find my ramblings here: http://paste2.org/p/982560

Hopefully your new rules and changes will foster healthy respectful relationships between moderators and members of this community-driven forum.

[kypec]

@Astrophizz

You sound like a fine chap. Send me an email and I'll give you a free license to my licensed tools. :)

Your good will buys you priority access to me over IRC, email, and the forum.Now, this sounds to me like bribery in public! Are you recruiting your counter-DS army or what?:p

[Astrophizz]

Haha, well as a bit of a noob I hold neuron2 and DS in fairly high regard for the software they work on. I'm not in any army - mainly because I'd rather not fight. There are better things to do on the internet :p

[Henrikx]

Humor..... three minutes for all

The Doom9 Family.....
(http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/video/xdwk35_dylin-prestly-microsoft-net-vs-java_tech?additionalInfos=0)

[kypec]

@Henrikx: though I'm forced to develop web apps in .NET in my work I must admit that the spot is just BRILLIANT. LOL:D

[HJRodrigo]

indeed. if neuron2 tried to contact 3 different mods and had no answer then he has much less responsibility in what happened.

I disagree, we should always be fully responsible for our own actions and not try to put the blame on others. He should have not acted if he was knowingly breaking the rules. Patients is a virtue, there was no rush to act. Nobody was going to die if he waited for a mod to help out. Do you even know how long he waited before he acted? Let Doom9 figure it all out before you to try to absolve anyone of any responsiblity. Something went wrong here and that is clear. Both DS and N2 are good people, but both deserve to be held accountable for their own actions and not excused because he is a moderator or x264 developer. We cannot see what DS supposedly did or verify the severity of the situation... Only Doom9 can, so we need to stop trying to pass the buck and have faith Doom9 knows what is best for his board.

[Sharktooth]

that's not the point. i meant, if there were more mods available the situation would have been different.

[Guest]

Now, this sounds to me like bribery in public! Are you recruiting your counter-DS army or what?:p While a cynic may see it as blatant bribery I prefer to see it as a magnanimous gesture. Send me your email address to get your free license and priority access to my support.

[Guest]

Both DS and N2 are good people, but both deserve to be held accountable for their own actions Gee, I must have missed the posts where you cross-examine DS to hold him accountable for his actions. I'd be grateful if you could point me to them. Thank you.

[Guest]

Humor..... three minutes for all
Very funny indeed.

But borderline rule 4 violation at the end. I'll overlook it...this time! :)

[stax76]

@Henrikx

Being the first releasing a .NET application here wasn't that funny, endless arguments, IIRC using .NET or MKV you had to be careful with Koepi, a moderator I'm sure many remember.

[Guest]

Koepi, a moderator I'm sure many remember. Yes, indeed, a very fine chap. He helped me a lot when I was a video noob. (Also, need to acknowledge manono's kind mentoring. And sh0dan, the list goes on...) I miss not seeing Koepi around here.

[HJRodrigo]

Gee, I must have missed the posts where you cross-examine DS to hold him accountable for his actions. I'd be grateful if you could point me to them. Thank you.

My understanding is you already disciplined him for doing what ever it was that he did, so why should I cross examine him? You already held him accountable for breaking a rule... I believe in the Double jeopardy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy) principle. DS has already been tried and found quilty by you, if he wants his sentence changed or what ever it is Doom9 that needs to cross examine him. I am pretty sure I have never cross examined you, I only asked you to elaborate if you felt I was some how incorrect in my thinking.

BTW it is not up to me to hold anyone accountable for their actions, but for doom9 and the people he put in charge (In fact I believe it was you who said something very similar to that in another post)

that's not the point. i meant, if there were more mods available the situation would have been different.
Hopefully Doom9's changes will prevent such situations from happening again. I always recommend this board to people who are trying to learn more about video editing and compression, so I really don't want to see this resource disappear.

[Guest]

The actions I'd like to see DS held accountable for are the vile attacks emanating from his forum. Do they not bother you, or do you think that is all just fine and dandy?

why should I cross examine him? Why then do you cross examine me?

With all due respects, just go away back to your utopia Doom10.

BTW, you haven't claimed your free license. I'll hold the offer open for you, don't worry.

[HJRodrigo]

The actions I'd like to see DS held accountable for are the vile attacks emanating from his forum. Do they not bother you, or do you think that is all just fine and dandy?

Why then do you cross examine me?

With all due respects, just go away back to your utopia Doom10.

BTW, you haven't claimed your free license. I'll hold the offer open for you, don't worry.

I don't post on those forums nor have I ever joined them. I think you have me confused with kypec or Astrophizz. You offered them a free license and I believe one of them wanted you to specificly show proof about your actions. As I wrote previously, if my memory is correct I have never cross examined you. I only asked you to clarify a claim you made about a statement of mine.

If people are making vile attacks about you on DS' Forums, then ask DS to hold them accountable. Surely you don't blame DS for what is comming out of the mouths of others. It would be like me blaming you for anything bad people are saying about DS. BTW I think anyone speaky vilely ( <---is that even a word? LOL) about anyone else is wrong. I do not support such actions.

[Guest]

As I wrote previously, if my memory is correct I have never cross examined you. Your memory is failing you. Review your own posts. You can start with this one:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1433142#post1433142

It's not your place to cross-examine me here on this (especially since you are still a Doom9 noob).

If people are making vile attacks about you on DS' Forums, then ask DS to hold them accountable. I already have. And what is this "if" equivocation?
Surely you don't blame DS for what is comming out of the mouths of others. Of course I do. He owns and manages the forum. He encourages, condones, and rewards that behavior. Anyway, he is the prime offender. Go read up over there. One example: at Doom10 someone called another Doom10 member for intentionally posting provocative insults over here. DS replied something like this: "He's just trolling. That's what he does." The entire Doom10 forum is a slap in the face to Doom9, our respected leader who gives us so much...for nothing in return!

Let's be clear... I'm looking for a win-win resolution to this affair. DS is looking for a win-lose resolution. He has pushed all his chips in. Let them fall where they may.

[HJRodrigo]

Your memory is failing you. Review your own posts. You can start with this one:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1433142#post1433142

It's not your place to cross-examine me here on this (especially since you are still a Doom9 noob).

That was not a cross examination :rolleyes: . You made a claim about a statement I made and I asked you to expand on how I was I making a "total misrepresentation of the facts" and "creating new controversies". If I was to have cross examined you about your actions. I whould have asked you why did you ban or suspend DS, if and when did you issue him a warning, did you give him time to respond to the warning, if and who did you consult before carrying out your actions, and so on. BTW I am not a "noob". I have been editing and compressing video's for years and have been visiting these forums for years. I only recently joined like three years ago cause I felt I had some news to share with the "community". If you are hung up on things like post count and titles then you need to grow up. This is just an internet forum. You are not some god or king that us peons should fear. Seriously what kind of attitude is that to have that allows you to imply how dare the lowly me/noob have the nerve to ask you a question :confused: .


I already have. And what is this "if" equivocation?
Of course I do. He owns and manages the forum. He encourages, condones, and rewards that behavior. Anyway, he is the prime offender. Go read up over there.
Then you feel that Doom9 encouraged, condoned, and rewarded the behaviors on this forum that led to problems. I was an admin to my own organizations forum for years and it was quite a hassle (This was part of my REAL job and not some hobby). I had to deal with a bad moderator (This was a REAL job as well and not some volunteer position like it is for you) and bad forum members before, and all I can say is I hope nobody blamed me for those issues. Doom9 is the forum I visit for video editing and compression and I have no desire to visit another one.

Let's be clear... I'm looking for a win-win resolution to this affair. DS is looking for a win-lose resolution. He has pushed all his chips in. Let them fall where they may. You guys need to hook up with Sharktooth and learn to settle things like grown men.

[Bi11]

The entire Doom10 forum is a slap in the face to Doom9, our respected leader who gives us so much...for nothing in return!
*Ha ha ha* LOL
You want some cheese to go with that wine?
All hail Doom9!

I'm just trolling. That's what I do.:p

[Guest]

Then you feel that Doom9 encouraged, condoned, and rewarded the behaviors on this forum that led to problems. No, I don't feel that.

You guys need to hook up with Sharktooth and learn to settle things like grown men. Send Sharktooth a PM and ask him who is willing to hook up with him on this and who is not.

I'm done with you. Bye.

[Guest]

All hail Doom9! Another loser noob chimes in to throw more oil on troubled waters.

Just a little heads-up. I have to go run some errands so I may not be able to immediately defend myself from any attacks that accumulate in my absence. Don't worry, I'll be back later to address them, my immediate non-response should not be taken as acquiescence. Thank you for your understanding.

[HJRodrigo]

Another loser noob chimes in to throw more oil on troubled waters. How mature. I will let Doom9 worry about you. I love these forums and don't wish for my experience to be soured.

[Bi11]

Another loser noob chimes in to throw more oil on troubled waters.
I'll take up that matter in court.

[Bi11]

If anyone read my ramblings (http://paste2.org/p/982560), they would have seen at the end:
Other established members can continue that discussion, which should indicate to the moderator that the collective is challenging his decision. The moderator should attempt to prove his correctness at the satisfaction of the collective (probably not feasible).
The Established member rule is "probably not feasible" because this forum's rules (17,3,11 to be specific) stifle constructive free speech.

I mentioned "the graveyard" in my ramblings; that should now be called "Court".

What follows is a culmination of my previous ideas knitted together to form an elegant solution to the moderator-member relationship problems.


Court definition

The Court (hereafter called 'court') is the sub-forum where members or moderators who break forum rules can have their hearing to defend themselves.
At the very least, these court cases are viewable by all members (not general public) and will serve as proof that the forum acknowledges these disputes between moderators and members.

Court rules

Court proceedings still abide by all forum rules except those that hinder constructive free speech (i.e. rules 17,3,11).

Only super moderators/moderators can create threads/cases and only the administrator or a super moderator can close a case (giving a ruling if necessary).
All super moderators are assumed to be objective/neutral, hence they are responsible for upholding court rules.

Moderators are treated as police officers rather than judges. Police do their best to enforce the law, but they are only human and so sometimes make mistakes. Still, they are not above the law.

Moderators also act as prosecutors when they charge/accuse a member of breaking a rule. Members act as prosecutors when they report/accuse a moderator of breaking a rule.

The moderator in question cannot moderate the case, though related follow-up posts in the main forum should be brought into the case by the moderator (acting as prosecutor), or by super moderators if necessary. If members are prosecuting a moderator then related follow-up posts in the main forum should be brought into the case by other moderators or super moderators, and only established members of those posts be allowed to participate in the case proceedings.

Violating a court rule results in a strike, which can be appealed only to the administrator through the appropriate channels.
A rule 4 violation in court results in immediate suspension, thus forfeiting the right to participate in the case proceedings.

It is of utmost importance to preserve the integrity of the court by ensuring all parties respect each other at all times.


Court usage

If a member breaks a forum rule then the member's post is moved into a new court case with case/thread title:
moderator name v. member name : (rule numbers violated) Title of original thread

It works the other way around as well. Members can report, (citing rule numbers violated) to a super moderator, a moderator's posts that are in violation of the moderator/forum rules. The super moderator should then create a case in court (with title member name v. moderator name ...) containing the moderator's posts and the reports made by those members.
If many members report a moderator's post (or related posts) to super moderators then those super moderators can allow only some of those members (established members) to participate in the case to prosecute the moderator.

If a member's violating post is the first post of a thread, then the whole thread should be thrown in court, else the single post is thrown. In place of the original post, there should only be a link to the post in court (displayed as moderator name v. member name : (rule numbers violated) (or member name v. moderator name : (rule numbers violated) if the moderator's post is being challenged)). Violating posts (and follow-on discussions) after the first violating post should also be thrown into the same court case as long as the off-topic issue is the same.

Members whose posts were thrown into a case are entitled to participate in the case proceedings.
The owner of the first post (i.e. the accused) is entitled to a "lawyer"/member as an additional representative at the owner's request, but only if the lawyer voluntarily wants/requests to participate in the proceedings.

Other members may request participation in the proceedings, but they will only be allowed to do so at the discretion of any available super moderator. These "invited" members are essentially those whom the super moderator considers to be established members.

The rest of the proceedings is intended for all parties to reach an agreement by debating the issue frankly without rules 17,3,11 in the way.

The debate could be, essentially, one party tries to prove the correctness of their statements and the other party verifies the proof until satisfied.
The debate could also be completely different. Such as, moderator claims rule 3 violation, member counter-claims mod-rule 8 plus rules 3,11 violations.

Still, the goal is for the accused to have a forum (a thread actually) to (constructively) speak freely in order to show they were wrongfully accused.

Court case outcomes

If the accused forfeits the right to participate in the hearing, within a reasonable amount of time or within a reasonable number of their new forum posts, whichever comes first, then the moderator's actions (or member's report) stand and the case against that member (or moderator) is resolved.

If there is mutual agreement, either by the accused explicitly accepting the moderator's actions (or member's report) or by the moderator (or member) explicitly agreeing to undo those actions unconditionally, then the case against that member (or moderator) is resolved.

If no agreement can be reached then the moderator's actions stand until the administrator or a super moderator gives a ruling and closes the case.

Once a case is resolved and closed, a super moderator performs any actions necessary to rectify the matter.
All rulings can be appealed only to the administrator, who will then give a final ruling on the matter.


Prevention better than court

In the real world, police officers can inquire (interrogate?) and warn individuals without charging them, so there is no reason to go to court because no action was taken against the individual (other than harassment?).

How can moderators do the same?
If a warning is given in the thread and no follow-up discussion ensues then there is no problem.
If, however, a follow-up discussion ensues or the moderator makes an inquiry (which of course results in a discussion) then perhaps that discussion should be taken out of the main forum and placed into it's own thread in a sub-forum called "Inquires".
The Inquires sub-forum could have similar rules as the court rules (relaxed rules 17,3,11, etc.) but no immediate suspension for rule 4 violation. However, any rules broken there must be enforced and the issue taken to court.


Comments

Note that under this contrived System of Justice the administrator is still head judge and head law-maker, which is a recipe for dictatorship (that may be appropriate for dystopian societies, which this community is not imho). So good faith is assumed in the administrator.

Details of this contrived justice system require a lot more thought to ideally (though may not be possible) ensure all possibilities are covered and no contradictions exists.

This may all seem overly complicated, but essentially you could have:
Administrator (head judge, head law-maker) -> Super Moderators (jugdes; these are your true employees in the workplace analogy, so choose them wisely; also, judges must not do police/prosecutor work (mod-rule 8)) -> Moderators (police) ~ community members (citizens)

The overall result being a much higher level of transparency and accountability, in relation to administration of justice, than currently exists on this forum.
The ultimate goal being maximization of transparency and accountability within constraints imposed by rules of this forum.

:helpful: