Jump to content
Server time: 2017-10-24, 04:13
Safe Zone: OPEN

Sign in to follow this  
Cipher

Dissenting Opinions

Recommended Posts

Cipher    0
Posted (edited)

I recently learned in my AP US Government class that whenever the US Supreme Court reaches a verdict on a case, if there are any strong dissenting opinions, a "dissenting opinion" report is written and released alongside the official verdict, in order to show the "other side" of the staff team's mind. I believe that this could be useful in a setting such as this: in a place where the "divide" in the community is significant and where some people are going "who signed off on this verdict?" It would be nice to see, in cases where dissent is high and where verdicts are not agreed upon between the majority of staff, a dissenting opinion wrote in conjunction with the verdict itself. It would add a layer of humanity, in my opinion, to verdicts and it would be a great way for the community to see how the staff team works through and discusses reports. It would also show that hey, not all cases are so black and white. These dissenting opinions would not be added onto the report verdict itself, but rather posted after the verdict by the primary staff member that disagrees with the verdict, explaining his opinion on how the verdict should've gone. They'd be optional, of course; if a dissenting staff member can't be arsed to write a report or there was little to no dissent on a verdict, then a dissenting opinion wouldn't be written.

Good idea? Bad idea? Is this another idiotic suggestion by Cipher? Let me know by liking or disliking this video, and commenting in the comment section below.

Edited by Cipher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except by the fact that this 'report' might get a little too personal, I'd like to see something like this, if it were optional of course. I believe the staff already gives a glimpse of their thought process on the verdicts, like this one and this one. It might not be the "type" of staff report you're talking about, but it's something already, from my perspective of course.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wumby    0

Nah this could cause a witch hunt in my opinion. Currently, you have no way of knowing which GMs handled the report. But if this was implemented, you would know who banned your friend. 

 

Say Castiel bans my friend, I will now have some sort of dislike for him on some level. Know what I mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Volke    131
14 minutes ago, Wumby said:

Nah this could cause a witch hunt in my opinion. Currently, you have no way of knowing which GMs handled the report. But if this was implemented, you would know who banned your friend. 

 

Say Castiel bans my friend, I will now have some sort of dislike for him on some level. Know what I mean?

You are indeed correct. It is not as if this currently does happen except solely to the person who wrote the verdict.....Oh wait.  

I do think there are cases in which where BS does happen, enough people harp on it to lead to it being resolved.  Not all bullshit gets resolved, but most of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×