Hermit
Auto-translated
I would also like to write once about the organizational aspects of the issue...
I will try to outline my vision of the working conditions for the review group...
A. The review group's communication with the rest of the forum members should be minimal, i.e., through an intermediary – it should not depend on the authority of the forum member or other similar factors.
1. The review group should have an odd number of members, and no one should abstain from voting.
2. No forum member should know how each member of the review group voted individually; only the collective decision should be known.
3. The review group, if possible, should not know whose case they are reviewing; only the facts, save files, and chat logs should be provided.
4. If any member of the review group has questions for any of the forum members involved in the dispute, all communication should be anonymous and through the intermediary.
B. The resolution of disputed issues should not be prolonged.
1. The intermediary between the review group and the forum members should forward their claims of unfair play within a specified number of days.
2. The intermediary should have several deputies. There should be several people who can replace members of the review group who, for some reason, cannot participate in the forum during the current period. This will prevent the review group from being affected by the fact that its members may have other matters to attend to and cannot be on the forum for some time.
3. The review group should consider these claims within a specified number of days from the date of the last fact or replacement, as mentioned in the previous point.
4. If the review group cannot reach a decision within this period, it will be dissolved, and a new review group will be elected.
I may think of something else later...
I will try to outline my vision of the working conditions for the review group...
A. The review group's communication with the rest of the forum members should be minimal, i.e., through an intermediary – it should not depend on the authority of the forum member or other similar factors.
1. The review group should have an odd number of members, and no one should abstain from voting.
2. No forum member should know how each member of the review group voted individually; only the collective decision should be known.
3. The review group, if possible, should not know whose case they are reviewing; only the facts, save files, and chat logs should be provided.
4. If any member of the review group has questions for any of the forum members involved in the dispute, all communication should be anonymous and through the intermediary.
B. The resolution of disputed issues should not be prolonged.
1. The intermediary between the review group and the forum members should forward their claims of unfair play within a specified number of days.
2. The intermediary should have several deputies. There should be several people who can replace members of the review group who, for some reason, cannot participate in the forum during the current period. This will prevent the review group from being affected by the fact that its members may have other matters to attend to and cannot be on the forum for some time.
3. The review group should consider these claims within a specified number of days from the date of the last fact or replacement, as mentioned in the previous point.
4. If the review group cannot reach a decision within this period, it will be dissolved, and a new review group will be elected.
I may think of something else later...
Всё не так плохо как Вы думаете. Всё намного хуже!