Quote:
Originally Posted by bwt501
In light of many recent premature and unwarranted Bad Guy posts on the BOI, perhaps a Grand Jury like system in where a committee of appointed individuals privately pre-screens the complaint to determine if it merits elevation to the public forum. This committee would not judge or deliberate, just deem it legitimate to proceed. Its standards can be extremely lenient so as to not refuse even the most minor of wrongs, however it would still have enough teeth to prevent obvious nonsense from becoming a public black eye for the recipient. It would also force a built in cool-down period, which we have seen resolves many issues and non-issues. This idea obviously can be altered or modified to fit the needs of the site, but I think something along these lines would alleviate much of the problems posed here lately.
|
I'm not sure such a group would work here. The way it works now is that anyone can bring their claims/experiences here and readers can judge for themselves.
Many claims have validity, some do not.
Usually spiteful or baseless claims get ferretted out quickly by readers and there is value there, because the community can also choose whether they further trust or would want to do business with the spitemonger.
There are indeed premature claims, where there would be no issue if the parties worked together, but isn't that itself a valuable piece of information for readers? I would not want to do business with someone who cannot even try to work out any differences or problems, whether it be with a buyer or seller.
Deliberate bearers of spiteful tales or lies may find, and justifiably so, that fewer people want to buy or sell from them in the future, which in many cases sort of self polices the process since readers are apt to be merciless with someone who lies just to step on another's good reputation.
In addition, the appointed individuals and the appointer would come under fire as, inevitably, the group moves to another site to air their grievance and cast aspersions on any no bill. There would be charges of favoritism, crony capitalism, and all manner of insults hurled by either side at the committee's members and one side or the other would then loudly disagree with the committee's decision.