/tg/Station 13

I think the premise is simple enough for me to outline without making a really long several paragraph post about it; I propose that there be a restructuring of the leadership hierarchy. Instead of having administrators be responsible both for making the rules and enforcing the rules, separate the duty of enforcing the rules (bans, notes, etc.) into its own role.

My motivation for suggesting this is real life examples. Judges don't serve arrest warrants. Prosecutors don't determine sentencing. Police officers don't determine your guilt or innocence.

I think we have enough administrators and people interested in being administrators that a separation of duties into separate roles would be a positive for the community and for the performance of their duties.

I don't think this is really a tenable idea anywhere except on paper because when it's a volunteer position nobody is going to want to volunteer to enforce rules they have no influence over writing (and they won't do it, they'll enforce their own understanding and interpretation of the rules as they do currently) and similarly it will feel very odd to be in a position of someone who volunteers to write rules but has no hand in enforcing them (divorcing them further from the experience of playing and running the actual game)

I also think you have kind of failed to write your OP for this by hiding behind "it's self-explanatory" because it isn't.
The fact that certain structures in real life are organised one way does not automatically mean they should be here, you've failed to really outline why this is a good idea in the first place.

I thought it was already separate because headmins write the rules

Head-admins write rules, admins enforce them, so this suggestion would more practically speaking be making the head-admins unable to enforce the rules they write.

I think I see what you're getting at but I think you missed the mark with the implementation idea ; legal systems typically have more safeguards and involve more people to review and give a "fresh set of eyes" on things. I don't think this applies with making/enforcing the rules but there's probably other parallels about investigation versus sanctioning. These complexities are unlikely to sit well in a smaller system however and bureaucracy has a tendancy to drag things out. I don't think there's a particular need to change anything either in that the current system does contain peer reviews via appeals and doesn't show any consistently problematic failings as a system.



We have decided not to make any changes based on this thread.