Public Raid Petitions: P99 Freedom of Information Act

[Frieza_Prexus]

I am enthused to see that you believe this is a good idea, Derubael.

I certainly agree with you that a simple, efficient, and fair format should be established to provide consistency and prevent even the slightest appearance of impropriety.

I'm certain you've seen it before, but here is the model policy I drafted for your consideration:

Originally Posted by Sample Procedures

SUGGESTED PROCEDURE

1) Petitioning guild submits a complaint via the petition forum
A) A 3-5 sentence summary
B) Two pages MAX of argument/counter argument
C) Appendices of logs and fraps (unedited but text highlighted for ease of reading & convenience.)
D) All appendices & fraps MUST be properly organized (logs bolded & fraps met with time stamps [Ex: train aggro @3:52 FD @7:34]
E) All Petitions (& defenses) will be made public as they were submitted verbatim

2) Accused guild is given/allowed to view the submitted petition & evidence
A) Accused guild submits a defense in the same format as the complaint

3) GM reviews all evidence in the submitted complaints & engages in additional fact finding in the server logs as necessary and requests additional evidence if necessary
A) GM's should rarely need to request additional evidence as guild officers should be smart enough to present all relevant evidence. Evidence omitted from the initial petition/response by neglect will NOT be considered without a reasonable excuse (Ex: a player who was on vacation came home and uploaded new fraps, or perhaps the new information did not originally appear necessary.)

4) GM issues a ruling.
A) All rulings and arguments, evidences, and appendices shall be made public the moment the ruling is issued
B) All rulings will consist of a short statement of the case including the ultimate disposition (part A guilty / not guilty etc.), a brief statement on why the GM staff ruled the way it did, and a brief statement explaining the punishment and its justifications.
B) Rulings may be appealed in the same format as the original complaint
C) Appeals are owed NO response, and are heard strictly at the discretion of the senior GM staff

5) If all involved parties can reach mutual agreement, GM intervention will be deemed unnecessary and the petition dismissed.
A)Frivolous or abusive petitions/appeals will result in punishment for the abusers
B) If an accused guild admits wrong doing and presents no defense, that admission will be considered favorably when determining punishment

[falkun]

I take issue with 3A. Make a hard line on when documentation is due. If someone wants to take FRAPS/logs and then ditch out for 3 days but the rebuttal period is 48hrs, thats on them and their guild. You'll get people rule lawyering and/or blatantly making up absences. Just make it a set time and be done with it, less gray area is better.

[Yumyums Inmahtumtums]

Lawyerquest at its finest

[Daldaen]

Let's just get 0 Variance so that if people lose a dragon, tough luck, atleast you didn't waste 16 hours of your life staring at a wall trying to jav spam FTE it.

Please? It's classic and I love me some classic.

[knix]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by Sample Procedures
SUGGESTED PROCEDURE

1) Petitioning guild submits a complaint via the petition forum
A) A 3-5 sentence summary
B) Two pages MAX of argument/counter argument
C) Appendices of logs and fraps (unedited but text highlighted for ease of reading & convenience.)
D) All appendices & fraps MUST be properly organized (logs bolded & fraps met with time stamps [Ex: train aggro @3:52 FD @7:34]
E) All Petitions (& defenses) will be made public as they were submitted verbatim

2) Accused guild is given/allowed to view the submitted petition & evidence
A) Accused guild submits a defense in the same format as the complaint

3) GM reviews all evidence in the submitted complaints & engages in additional fact finding in the server logs as necessary and requests additional evidence if necessary
A) GM's should rarely need to request additional evidence as guild officers should be smart enough to present all relevant evidence. Evidence omitted from the initial petition/response by neglect will NOT be considered without a reasonable excuse (Ex: a player who was on vacation came home and uploaded new fraps, or perhaps the new information did not originally appear necessary.)

4) GM issues a ruling.
A) All rulings and arguments, evidences, and appendices shall be made public the moment the ruling is issued
B) All rulings will consist of a short statement of the case including the ultimate disposition (part A guilty / not guilty etc.), a brief statement on why the GM staff ruled the way it did, and a brief statement explaining the punishment and its justifications.
B) Rulings may be appealed in the same format as the original complaint
C) Appeals are owed NO response, and are heard strictly at the discretion of the senior GM staff

5) If all involved parties can reach mutual agreement, GM intervention will be deemed unnecessary and the petition dismissed.
A)Frivolous or abusive petitions/appeals will result in punishment for the abusers
B) If an accused guild admits wrong doing and presents no defense, that admission will be considered favorably when determining punishment

would petitions settled without gm intervention also be general population viewable? I think that is needed, because it would show who was negotiating in good faith, ie guild A trained trakanon ot guild b, so guild a agreed to forfeit that trak plus...x. So the next time when it happens that guild B trains a mob on guild A, and guild B says fuck you there is a public record on how it was handled when the situation was in reversed.

[Heebo]

This would be great. The only problem would be if our raid dispute person stepped down and they were the only person allowed to post in that forum we'd be left totally defenseless.

It's been months since our officers have restructured and TMO still can't get the right people access in the guild discussion forum.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by knix [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

would petitions settled without gm intervention also be general population viewable? I think that is needed, because it would show who was negotiating in good faith, ie guild A trained trakanon ot guild b, so guild a agreed to forfeit that trak plus...x. So the next time when it happens that guild B trains a mob on guild A, and guild B says fuck you there is a public record on how it was handled when the situation was in reversed.

This is unenforceable. Private negotiations should stay that way; there's no effective way to make it otherwise.

[Juntsie]

This thread and extent of lawyerquesting is so unclassic that it make Juntsie vomit up Froglocks he ate for supper four days ago.

GM should simply not devote dis much effort to raid disputes and bickering that apply to only small amount of players on server. GM resources better spent doing other tings.

Lawyerquesting is not classic and should be bashed in face.

[Daldaen]

0 Variance it up.

Juntsie gets that classic is very important. 16 hour windows aren't classic.

[knix]

We need to establish the petition language as non roleplay englis.

But, live was different, this server is top heavy with level 60 raiders.