Neoandy
Auto-translated
There's no arguing about the Prosecutor or Lawyer – their qualities are quite fitting. The main thing is that they shouldn't be in the role of Judge.
+100.
We need to remember that the Arbitration Committee (or whatever it will be called) will likely be deciding the fates of forum members – and that's a serious matter. Therefore, its members should be objective, impartial, and professional. In my opinion, it's very important that Nagan-4, given his profession in real life (a lawyer), is included in the committee. It's crucial to clearly understand what "following the letter of the law" means. It's one thing when a decision has to be made against a newcomer, for example, as in the recent case. And it's quite another if a long-time forum member, with whom you have a friendly relationship, comes under suspicion – in the legal field, in such cases, judges are obliged to recuse themselves, and the defendant must request recusal (if the relationship is personally unfriendly, etc.), justifying it (Pete, this point should be clarified – I think we won't be able to avoid it). In legal practice, such recusals are usually considered by the chairman of the relevant or higher court.
This is all ideal, but our possibilities are limited, so on the one hand, I would recommend Alex for the "prosecution department," where they should bring the maximum charges to ensure nothing is overlooked, and the court will separate the wheat from the chaff and make a balanced and wise decision. But on the other hand, there are no resources for this (since there will indeed be more generals than soldiers), so considering the collegial nature (5-7 members) of the Arbitration Committee, I don't think having a "prosecutor" in it will be critical. Don't forget about the right to defense either. The accused must have the right to provide explanations on all points of the accusation, and perhaps even raise a specific issue for discussion in some cases – in general, the rights need to be defined.
And probably, something like an oath of the Arbitration Committee itself is necessary, and there should be the strictest measures for violating it, up to and including a ban :smile42:.
And perhaps most importantly: establish that the Arbitration Committee's decision can be appealed in certain cases (for example, a ban for cheating, if the accused disagrees – and there can be judicial errors) through a "referendum."
The option of a jury trial is also interesting (from a professional point of view, it's the best model for the forum), where the Arbitration Committee is the jury, whose composition is elected by the forum based on the personal qualities of the participants, but the final decision should still be made by professionals (a judicial panel, say, of 3 people). So that the Arbitration Committee doesn't end up like in the beginning of Mikhalkov's film – 12 Angry Men – where everyone quickly agreed with the arguments of the "prosecutor."
I've outlined my thoughts, and you can extract the rational ideas for yourselves. And there should be no rush in such an important matter – its relevance will not fade if the problem is truly pressing, and not just one of the new TOP topics that will be replaced by another in a week. At least think, search, and discuss until the end of May – give birth to the truth.