Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal

Remove Reactions from the courts


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

 

Nobody said anything about current judges.  We have been speaking in the general sense. 

 

I'm not sure what exactly that vetting involves, but checking server record is not going to do anything to "negate" something that's human nature.  And as I already hinted above, the influence is not always on a conscious level; it's very much human nature and if it occurs on a subconscious level, it is almost impossible to prove.  I say "almost" only because sometimes the decision-maker is so wrong, or their interpretation was so implausible, that it's obvious that they were influenced by something other than the facts and the law -- but even in that situation it'd be speculative. 

 

 

 

You're clearly implying that judges chose certain stances on cases clearly for likes. You are also completely correct, it's impossible to prove your original statement of implying things are done on the court system for a singular like.

 

If you're unsure of what that vetting involves, you are free to attempt to become a judge and learn first hand the magnifying glass we get put under. Although I am unsure how that would turn out, it sure would be a learning experience for you. 

 

But there's no reason to actually attempt to argue with you, I am currently a judge and have a close relationship on an OOC level with the rest of the judges, and I can promise you we do not decide on things on an OOC basis simply for "likes" on our posts. 

Link to post
  • Replies 21
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No.   Do people mark snarky remarks in forum RP they otherwise wouldn't make IG to impress people and win internet points? Yeah, but they look like fucking losers doing so. As for the proble

The fact that a "subconscious" issue bothers you is extremely laughable ngl. This is an almost ridiculous suggestion. Although I am willing to entertain your hypothesis and bump it up a notch. If this

I'm not sure if you misunderstood or what happened but I did not ask how to pass the vetting process; so the analogy falls.  (We've went from strawman  to false analogy).    I asked what was

Just now, Cocaine Capital said:

 

You're clearly implying that judges chose certain stances on cases clearly for likes. You are also completely correct, it's impossible to prove your original statement of implying things are done on the court system for a singular like.

 

If you're unsure of what that vetting involves, you are free to attempt to become a judge and learn first hand the magnifying glass we get put under. Although I am unsure how that would turn out, it sure would be a learning experience for you. 

 

But there's no reason to actually attempt to argue with you, I am currently a judge and have a close relationship on an OOC level with the rest of the judges, and I can promise you we do not decide on things on an OOC basis simply for "likes" on our posts. 

 

 

There is no reason not to be forthcoming about the vetting.  If you think it really guards against this, why not just share what is involved in vetting? 

 

I also don't understand how someone can credibly give assurances about something that happens on a subconscious level -- being "subconscious" means they aren't fully aware it.  If one isn't aware of the subconscious influence exerted on their own decisions, how can they be aware when it happens on a subconscious level in others?  Come on, now.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

 

 

There is no reason not to be forthcoming about the vetting.  If you think it really guards against this, why not just share what is involved in vetting? 

 

I also don't understand how someone can credibly give assurances about something that happens on a subconscious level -- being "subconscious" means they aren't fully aware it.  If one isn't aware of the subconscious influence exerted on their own decisions, how can they be aware when it happens on a subconscious level in others?  Come on, now.

 

The fact that a "subconscious" issue bothers you is extremely laughable ngl. This is an almost ridiculous suggestion. Although I am willing to entertain your hypothesis and bump it up a notch. If this is such a major issue on a subconscious level that it genuinely affects OOC decision making in the server just to appeal to an ego, let's get rid of likes on the forums in it's entirety. 

 

There's no reason to just remove likes from a singular part of a forum. They should be removed completely from the forums. It would end all decisions that are influenced by an OOC desire for likes, and would strictly leave it to be completely IC. Now this could prove to be an issue with the news stations such as LSNN and the legal review and plenty of other documents posted on the forums in the nature like this. As implied by your argument all these things are posted and influenced by an OOC desire for likes. But if likes are gotten rid of in it's entirety, then we don't have to nitpick these tiny things at all. End it at the source. 

 

Also, just like the LSPD, LSSD, LSFD, and almost all other legal factions, leaking OOC information about said factions that are privy only to the ones who receive it is highly frowned upon and can result in removal in said factions. The JSA is no different. If you're truly interested in the vetting process of judges, you are more than willing to advance your bar character from a lawyer to a judge. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Cocaine Capital said:

 

The fact that a "subconscious" issue bothers you is extremely laughable ngl. This is an almost ridiculous suggestion. Although I am willing to entertain your hypothesis and bump it up a notch. If this is such a major issue on a subconscious level that it genuinely affects OOC decision making in the server just to appeal to an ego, let's get rid of likes on the forums in it's entirety. 

There's no reason to just remove likes from a singular part of a forum. They should be removed completely from the forums. It would end all decisions that are influenced by an OOC desire for likes, and would strictly leave it to be completely IC. Now this could prove to be an issue with the news stations such as LSNN and the legal review and plenty of other documents posted on the forums in the nature like this. As implied by your argument all these things are posted and influenced by an OOC desire for likes. But if likes are gotten rid of in it's entirety, then we don't have to nitpick these tiny things at all. End it at the source. 

 

 

 

 

The suggestion was to disable it for the court boards for an obvious and compelling reason that doesn't apply to the rest of the forums: impartiality.  It's disingenuous and not courteous to blow it out of proportion or mischaracterize the purpose.

 

If you don't agree with the suggestion because you think it doesn't happen, then say so and leave it at that.  Mischaracterizing the purpose is not helpful and just detracts from your position.

 

Quote

Also, just like the LSPD, LSSD, LSFD, and almost all other legal factions, leaking OOC information about said factions that are privy only to the ones who receive it is highly frowned upon and can result in removal in said factions. The JSA is no different. If you're truly interested in the vetting process of judges, you are more than willing to advance your bar character from a lawyer to a judge. 

 

I don't understand why discussing how OOC vetting occurs would be frowned upon.  When applying to the San Andreas Bar Association, there is a public information thread about vetting for lawyers.  Why would it be secretive for judges?  It's shaping up to be an increasingly indefensible position. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Midsummer Night's Dream
Link to post
4 minutes ago, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

 

The suggestion was to disable it for the court boards for an obvious and compelling reason that doesn't apply to the rest of the forums: impartiality.  It's disingenuous and not courteous to blow it out of proportion or mischaracterize the purpose.

 

If you don't agree with the suggestion because you think it doesn't happen, then say so and leave it at that.  Mischaracterizing the purpose is not helpful and just detracts from your position.

 

 

I don't understand why discussing how OOC vetting occurs would be frowned upon.  When applying to the San Andreas Bar Association, there is a public information thread about vetting for lawyers.  Why would it be secretive for judges?  It's looking an increasingly indefensible position. 

 

Well why disable it for the court boards only? It'd be best to disable it for the whole forums to avoid anyone doing IC actions for OOC likes. It's plain to see based on your arguemtn.

 

Bar attorneys are a very simple and low rank in the JSA structure. They actually are not even considered members to my current knowledge. Once you get put into a position where you must have OOC impartiality the small bit of vetting done by just a simple bar attorney looks incredibly basic. 

 

As stated before though, if you are interested, we welcome you to attempt to apply to become a judge. We are always looking for good ones. 

Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Cocaine Capital said:

 

Well why disable it for the court boards only? It'd be best to disable it for the whole forums to avoid anyone doing IC actions for OOC likes. It's plain to see based on your arguemtn.

 

Again:  i-m-p-a-r-t-i-a-l-i-t-y.   Judges are expected to be objective and neutral decision-makers who should not be influenced by anything other than the submissions before them on than the facts and the law; this does not apply to another other IC message boards, where there is no expectation to be neutral or objective.  It's not "plain to see;" it's a fallacy called strawman. 

 

Quote

Bar attorneys are a very simple and low rank in the JSA structure. They actually are not even considered members to my current knowledge. Once you get put into a position where you must have OOC impartiality the small bit of vetting done by just a simple bar attorney looks incredibly basic. 

 

As stated before though, if you are interested, we welcome you to attempt to apply to become a judge. We are always looking for good ones. 

 

But that doesn't answer my question; why would that vetting process be withheld?  

 

 

 

Edited by Midsummer Night's Dream
Link to post
Just now, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

 

Again:  i-m-p-a-r-t-i-a-l-i-t-y.   Judges are expected to be objective and neutral decision-makers who should not be influenced by anything other the submissions before them on the facts and the law; this does not apply to another other IC message boards, where there is no expectation to be neutral or objective.  It's not "plain to see;" it's a fallacy called strawman. 

 

 

But that doesn't answer my question; why would that vetting process be a secretive?  

 

It is highly plain to see. For example, when someone posts a screenshot of their character doing something and someone doesn't like it. Maybe their subconscious drives them to make a different set of decisions on an IC level to better please people on an OOC level.

 

For another example, someone decides to post in the IC board a series of articles that receive absolutely zero likes, their subconscious may make them never post articles again on an IC level due to this. Or maybe those articles receive numerous likes, and this drives the individuals subconscious to then make more articles.  All of these examples could be construed as mixing IC and OOC. So it'd be best to get rid of it in it's entirety as to better be safe than sorry.

 

Also, you are still not understanding which is very understandable. If we aren't allowed to go into details on things provided to us, why would we inform you or anyone else for that matter why we aren't allowed to go into details. There's a reason why I am not telling you what Judges go through, and that is because you do not deserve to know as you are not attempting to become a judge. 

 

Now this topic has sorta strayed away from the original suggestion. So I'll leave this conversation here as to not derail and keep things on the original point. But my opinion stands that if we must remove reactions from the courts section to avoid any IC and OOC mixing, it would be better to rid it completely. 

Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Cocaine Capital said:

 

It is highly plain to see. For example, when someone posts a screenshot of their character doing something and someone doesn't like it. Maybe their subconscious drives them to make a different set of decisions on an IC level to better please people on an OOC level.

 

For another example, someone decides to post in the IC board a series of articles that receive absolutely zero likes, their subconscious may make them never post articles again on an IC level due to this. Or maybe those articles receive numerous likes, and this drives the individuals subconscious to then make more articles.  All of these examples could be construed as mixing IC and OOC. So it'd be best to get rid of it in it's entirety as to better be safe than sorry.

 

 

What does this have to do with the neutrality and objectivity of judges?  This is textbook strawman. 

 

I don't think we've strayed to far.  It was a natural progression.  You insist that there is OOC vetting which guards against the OOC influence targeted here; I've asked what that vetting involves; and you refused to share the vetting process because, apparently, for some unknown reason that you also can't share, the vetting process is secretive. 

 

I have never read a more Kafkesque exchange.   The vetting process is secretive and the reasons as to why it is secretive are also secretive -- Kafka couldn't have written anything better! 

 

 

 

Edited by Midsummer Night's Dream
Link to post
5 minutes ago, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

 

What does this have to do with the neutrality and objectivity of judges?  This is textbook strawman. 

 

I don't think we've strayed to far.  It was a natural progression.  You insist that there is OOC vetting which guards against the OOC influence targeted here; I've asked what that vetting involves; and you refused to share the vetting process because, apparently, for some unknown reason that you also can't share, the vetting is also secretive. 

 

I have never read a more Kafkesque exchange.   The vetting process is secretive and the reasons why it is secretive are also secretive -- Kafka couldn't have written anything better! 

 

 

 


As stated before, if you wish to know, go ahead and attempt to be a judge and you’ll learn first hand. 
 

Asking to reveal information you are not deserving to know at this time about a faction is highly preposterous. It’s just like asking the LSPD recruiters how to pass the exam by asking for the answers to it when someone tells you the exam is hard. 
 

I have lost interest in the conversation between you and I as it’s quiet clear there’s going to be no ground gained on either side. 
 

As it stands my opinion remains the same as your opinion also remains the same. See ya around kid have fun. 
 

 

Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Cocaine Capital said:


As stated before, if you wish to know, go ahead and attempt to be a judge and you’ll learn first hand. 
 

Asking to reveal information you are not deserving to know at this time about a faction is highly preposterous. It’s just like asking the LSPD recruiters how to pass the exam by asking for the answers to it when someone tells you the exam is hard. 
 

 

 

I'm not sure if you misunderstood or what happened but I did not ask how to pass the vetting process; so the analogy falls.  (We've went from strawman  to false analogy). 

 

I asked what was involved in it.  I didn't ask for exam answers, either.  Is there, for instance, a test, an interview, server record and other background checks, a combination of one or more?  I don't understand why that process would be secretive, nor why the reasons it's secretive -- if it actually is -- are also secretive.  

 

 

Edited by Midsummer Night's Dream
  • Applaud 1
Link to post
  • Jeff_ locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...