Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

[team fl]

Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

General remarks

Aim and purposes

The FCRC helps to build a common procedure in handling fairplay cases in RSF/C4F. It states the duties and the rights of the Fairplay Committee (FC) as well as its structures. Furthermore, it states the recruiting for (new) members of the FC and their behaviour in the chat, the forum and in general when discussing internally.

The FCRC goes in detail how a fairplay case should be managed by the FC and its members. Finally, the FCRC offers a penalty guideline. The penalties mentioned in the guideline are not fixed but more to be seen as – that’s why called this way – guidelines.

The Fairplay Committee

The Fairplay Committee is the organisation in RSF/C4F that is responsible for:
- handling cases that affect the fairplay in the game, most importantly violations of the fairness rules,
- reading and responding in the fairness section of the forum and investigating accusations,
- interfering in the race chat if there is a fairplay incident.

The Fairplay Committee and its members are objective in any case. If a member is biased in any way, this member will leave the floor to the other members and will not be involved in any decision regarding the case.

Structure

Staff

The FC consists of 8 members. Additionally Buhmann is the 9th member and holds the balance of power. He has all rights (that are stated below) of all members. The FC staff is divided in:

- 2 case coordinators:

They search open cases in the forum and assign them to 2 case dealers. They always have an overview about the assigned cases and their status. Case coordinator may also actively discuss in the forum and internally if it does not affect their main duty.

- 6 case dealers:

They deal with the cases in the forum and lead the discussion in public and in the FC. They gather the information for the basis of a final decision. A Case dealer may answer in a fairness thread of an open case independently but has to report the case to one of the case coordinators immediately that assign the case to a case dealer.

Recruiting members

A FC member has to fulfil the following conditions (counts for case dealers and coordinators):
- active in the forum
- good manners with other users, in the forum as well as in the chat
- objective ability to judge
- thick-skinned (not mistaken with mellow)
- enough time to be active in fairplay discussions and decision making
- a good common sense
- some sort of “loyalty” to the FC and the game

The FC recommends possible new personnel to Buhmann, who finally decides who is going to join them. The recommendation is developed in the internal chat. The decision is made by consensus among the FC members, finally approved by Buhmann.

Before Buhmann’s decision is made, the potential new member has to be addressed with the intention to make him a FC member. Thus, in a positive answer, the user has to give a short explanation for his decision why he will be a useful asset as a FC member. This is the final basis for the decision.

Duties

See also in “Staff”. In general there are the following duties:

A FC member has to check the Fairplay section of the forum regularly. This means first the international Fairplay section, second the Fairplay section in his mother tongue’s part of the forum. Third, the FC member visits occasionally the sections of the other languages he is able to communicate in written form.

A FC member has to take part of internal fairness discussions regularly and therefore has to vote for a decision of the FC regularly (besides cases he is/should not be involved).

Rights

A FC member has the right to take part in internal discussions of the FC.
A FC member has the right to vote for a decision of the FC (if not stated otherwise).
A FC member has the right to discuss fairplay cases in the forum.
A FC member has the right to indicate violations of the fairness rules during a race via chat.

Behaviour

There will delicate situations, when a FC member has to find solutions for problems, either in a hot tempered discussion in the forum or difficult cases. Thus here are some Dos and DON’Ts for a FC member when discussion cases in public. This is not a closing list!

DOs

- always try to be as neutral as possible
- be friendly but decisive
- write clearly and understandable
- If your not sure about something, ask another FC member for help
- if you are biased, ask another FC member to take over a case and let the decision to the other FC members

DON’Ts

- don’t use bad language in any situation a fairplay case is discussed in public
- don’t judge a user beforehand. Never.
- don’t discuss a final FC decision in public
- don’t discuss the penalty guideline in public. Never.

If the handling of a case is not described in the rules or in the guidelines explicitly, the FC has the power to act in the spirit of the game. Additionally, any conversation with the FC members is confidential and must not be made public in any case (or form).

Case Management

Creating a case

Usually, a case is created by a user when open a fairness thread. A fairness thread may also be opened by a FC members, if there is a spotted violation of the fairness rules.

Assignment of a case

A case dealer of the FC may answer the opening posting independently. Immediately afterwards, he or she has to contact a case coordinator. The case coordinator finally assigns the case to 2 case dealers that lead the main discussion in forum and internally.

If a case dealer is biased in any way, he must not deal with this case. The case dealer must not participate in the discussion and in the decision making process of the FC. Furthermore He or she stays out of public discussion.

If a case dealer is not able anymore to deal with a case - for whatever reason - , he contacts one of the case coordinators, who assigns it to another case dealer.

Decision making

The FC makes decisions about cases and penalties internally. The discussion is leaded by the affected 2 case dealers. Every other member is allowed to share its opinion (besides the mentioned exceptions. Best case, every member – according to the guideline – proposes his opinion about the case and the final decision. In the end, the 2 case dealers make a final decision. If there is no severe doubt by another member or a Veto by Buhmann, the decision is carried out.

Appeal

Every user has the right to appeal the decision that affects him or her. He may write his position with his arguments to one of the case dealers with a personal message. The appeal has to be presented in the FC. If the appeal is justified, the decision will be lifted. If the appeal is not justified the decision will stay. In any case, the user has to be informed about the final decision.

Penalty Guideline

The penalty guideline is added as Excel file. Sorry, it is in German, but hopefully understandable to the most of you. Of course, the mentioned penalties are randomly chosen an may be adapted by the FC. This guideline of course is open for discussion. The final guideline should not be made public!




Now stone me

But before that, please join the discussion about the concept and your ideas about a Fairness Committee. Thanks.

[Woddeltown Team]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZNyXlH_Zf4

Do you see yourself?
Oh okay...after Discussion

Seriously, the concept looks good
But the guideline is not hard enough in my opinion.

[deuseburger]

moin miteinander,
thats some impressive work! so a big thanks from my side for taking the recent irritations to something constructive which the community as a whole should get some benefits from...

before commenting on the content i strongly advice to close all national fairplay threads and only use the international one, where the main language should be english if possible (just because i guess thats the language which most users are able to understand) but of cause every other language is allowed if the user posting is not capable of it, or feels his english is inadequate to express the case propperly.

as far as the content is concerned i realy like most of it, dont really see the need to seperate between case dealers and case coordinators so far, but i go with that too, cause it may give the procedure a tighter structure. i just think you mixed the two up here:

If a case dealer is not able anymore to deal with a case - for whatever reason - , he contacts one of the case dealers, who assigns it to another case dealer.

(emphasis by me)
guess the emphasised part should be case coordinators in stead of case dealer

dont realy made my mind up for the guideline by now. what i mislike on first sight is the distinction between new users and those with 50+ races in the case of the last column (repeatedly beeing insulting or breaking the fairness rules)
btw would be great if someone else than fl who already put a lot of effort in this could make a translation of the excel file...

absolutly no need for stones here and again a big thx,
cheers deuse

[team fl]

If a case dealer is not able anymore to deal with a case - for whatever reason - , he contacts one of the case dealers, who assigns it to another case dealer.

(emphasis by me)
guess the emphasised part should be case coordinators in stead of case dealer

of course, thanks

some words about the guideline: I just took random numbers for the penatlies and for new and old users and not made upon serious thinking. These are of course open for discussion and just an example of how it could be.

[Rockstar Inc]

maybe i didn't see the right sentence...but it's way important that Buhmann/Leso or "the FC Head" reacts a little bit faster then now...in my time as FC member we had to wait 1,2 weeks till a proposal or "action" which was talked about in FC got "executed"...as far as i see it's not really different right now....

[team fl]

maybe i didn't see the right sentence...but it's way important that Buhmann/Leso or "the FC Head" reacts a little bit faster then now...in my time as FC member we had to wait 1,2 weeks till a proposal or "action" which was talked about in FC got "executed"...as far as i see it's not really different right now....

I've been thinking about that problem too, but have not found a really decent solution for it. One way could be that Buhmann is not needed for a decision of the FC. Thus, the FC could act without Buhmann's approval (but of course with the possibility of a veto by Buhmann). This leads to two questions: Is this technically possible, how much programming effort from Buhmann is needed for such a solution and is he willing to do it? Is it wanted that some users of this game have this power?

[team fl]

A yes, something I forgot to mention in my starting post:

Compensation

Each member for the FC gets the RSF-licence for free.


There has to be a reward for this job and a incentive to be sometimes the bad guy

[team fl]

A good point sent by Auxilium Torino:

Languages:

Every member of the FC has to be able to communicate in English. Furthermore, at least 1 member of the FC has to be able to communicate fluently in one of these languages:
- German
- French
- Italian

Additionally, it is wished that as much languages as possible are represented in the FC (including Dutch, Spanish, Portugese, etc.).

[Team Schlonz]

I've got just a question to the topic "languages":
'Able to communicate in English' should mean, that he or she is able to use accurate grammar and spelling?

I think so, because often a missing/additional letter or word can heavily distort the meaning. And when I think of "if-clauses" and so on, I really won't imagine the mistakes! Okay maybe this argument would disqualify more than 90 % of the community, but I guess, that's a quite important point.
Please do not misunderstand me (on purpose or not), I don't say anything about random errors, which could occur to a native speaker, too. But if someone's not able to use the correct English grammar and spelling, I won't consider him as qualified for the job.

[deuseburger]

moin, me again...

Each member for the FC gets the RSF-licence for free.

against that one, cause we might end up seeing someone doing the job out of the wrong motives

'Able to communicate in English' should mean, that he or she is able to use accurate grammar and spelling?

I think so, because often a missing/additional letter or word can heavily distort the meaning. And when I think of "if-clauses" and so on, I really won't imagine the mistakes! Okay maybe this argument would disqualify more than 90 % of the community, but I guess, that's a quite important point.

make it at least 95%, sad to say, but if it would be about german i´m pretty sure it would disqualify about 80% of the native! speakers too.
so, against that one too (and thats not only because i would be disqualified either )

cheers deuse

edith says that she is not sure about that one:

A good point sent by Auxilium Torino:

Languages:

Every member of the FC has to be able to communicate in English.

as long as there are enough people in the fc able and willing to tranclate i´d rather have someone full of integrity but without any english than vice versa...

[team fl]

moin, me again...

Each member for the FC gets the RSF-licence for free.

against that one, cause we might end up seeing someone doing the job out of the wrong motives

But you did read the recruiting part? conditions and so on. People will not apply for the job. People will be ASKED for the job by the fairplay committee. Furthermore, I don't see the point why people working for the game should not get any reward.

A good point sent by Auxilium Torino:

Languages:

Every member of the FC has to be able to communicate in English.

as long as there are enough people in the fc able and willing to tranclate i´d rather have someone full of integrity but without any english than vice versa...

But you agree that at least the main languages in the game (German, French, Italian, English) should be covered? Otherwise it just will get very complicated. But of course the main conditions should be the most important ones.

[deuseburger]

@fl
i did in fact read that part, but imho there is no real difference between applying or saying yes to the job out of the wrong motives... but you reacted before i could edit my post, cause i forgot the other side of the coin which could be some enviousness (not sure if this meets the german word missgunst) by some non fc members... anyway dont think this is a crucial part of the fcrc.

and yap, the main languages should be covered (i still have some hopes there are integer people even in the country i live in ), totaly got my vote on that. ( i dare to repeat myself in this context and like to point out again the importance of closing the national fairplay sections.)

[team fl]

@fl
i did in fact read that part, but imho there is no real difference between applying or saying yes to the job out of the wrong motives... but you reacted before i could edit my post, cause i forgot the other side of the coin which could be some enviousness (not sure if this meets the german word missgunst) by some non fc members... anyway dont think this is a crucial part of the fcrc.

yep, no important part. agree.

and yap, the main languages should be covered (i still have some hopes there are integer people even in the country i live in ), totaly got my vote on that. ( i dare to repeat myself in this context and like to point out again the importance of closing the national fairplay sections.)

just repeat it till it's done.

[Team Schlonz]

moin, me again...

[...]

'Able to communicate in English' should mean, that he or she is able to use accurate grammar and spelling?

I think so, because often a missing/additional letter or word can heavily distort the meaning. And when I think of "if-clauses" and so on, I really won't imagine the mistakes! Okay maybe this argument would disqualify more than 90 % of the community, but I guess, that's a quite important point.

make it at least 95%, sad to say, but if it would be about german i´m pretty sure it would disqualify about 80% of the native! speakers too.
so, against that one too (and thats not only because i would be disqualified either )
[...]

Okay, let me explain my idea a bit further. I'm active in several international forums. There, the common language is English, of course. Often, avoidable mistakes and misunderstandings happen due to an incorrect used grammar and/or spelling. Furthermore, it would be too hard for a reader, who would only skim over the text, to understand, if the writer used e.g. a wrong word order (such as object-predicate-subject instead of the correct S-P-O). Just to clarify, the correct word order is the half way to a comprehensible sentence! But I didn't want to discuss the English grammar. It was just an example.

And for sure, deuse, you wouldn't be disqualified. Normally, your topics and replies are formulated very clear and comprehensible!
There many other users (I don't mention any name), whose writings are really bad to understand.

[...] and yap, the main languages should be covered [...]

Main language should be English. That's what I'm inured to from different other games and forums. So that's definitively no point to discuss. Other languages should only be considered as an optional bonus without obligation. I daresay that's the only way to a smooth internationalisation.

[auxilium torino]

All 4 game main languages must be covered in moment(eng-fra-ger-ita).
Several players cannot understand english, we cannot build a FC that cannot comunicate with a big parts of the players.
I think, in moment, portugal and spain players, that 99% cannot absolutely comunicate with other players in every race.
At moment are not a big problem, while are few players, but if their reach the number of french players, we muss count with several teamattack every day.

My opinion is that, is not important that all FC members speak english or german or another languages, but they must be able to comunicate with all the players that are fined or banned, also to explain and motivate a decision.

Other important point is a good experience in the game, their must be able to take a decision in few minutes, must be able to detect a rule break directly, if their are called from other teams like now or assist at race in ZC.


team fl ha scritto:Each member for the FC gets the RSF-licence for free.

deuseburger ha scritto:against that one, cause we might end up seeing someone doing the job out of the wrong motives

100% with Deuse!

[team fl]

More Feedback would be great: opinions, suggestions, critisism, demonizations...

What do you think about how the FC should look like? Do you think the FCRC is good/bad/wonderful/gread/bullshit/crap/divine/improvable? And if good/bad/wonderful/gread/bullshit/crap/divine/improvable, why?

Thanks for your participation in this discussion.

[auxilium torino]

members must every days active:
an example:
since 3 days i put 3 new instance.
at today, nobody make a commentar,spend a word, or vote for this.
and we speak about a comitee that must be operative, and sometimes must take a decision in few minutes????

[Robyklebt]

Looong post, learn from the ape, be short and concise.

So far the FC is an advisory panel, that should stay that way. So Buhmann not really a member, just the big boss. The most important job for the FC is:
REMIND Buhmann of all the fairness stuff going on. That basically happens through the existence of the committee itself. By seeing a list ingame..Second job is gather the facts for Buh and recommend a punishment. Basically so that Buh doesn't even have to read the fairness forum anymore.

That should stay that way IMO.
The fairness committe in NO CASE should be able to act independently right now. In the future if we had a FC that has the trust of the community, that can be trusted to do the right thing, we could think about limited powers. Right now no.

Then FL says: 8 members 6 case dealers, 2 coordinators. Ok with the coordinators, makes it easier who deals with the case. But IMO the coordinators should be case officers too. They just decide or ask somebody to take over a case, instead of an internal discussion, makes it easier, but should deal with cases themselves too. .

8? I'd go for 10... just because not always everybody will be around, being of, holidays, no time, something.. with only 8 there might be only 4 there or so at some point, make it 10. Not everybody has time every day.

Then you say 2 case officers per case? I'd say one is enough. But ok...If it's high maintenance cases involving the ape probably 2 are necessary

Case officer: Can the 2 fighers if it's an insult topic demand another case officer?

Decision making:

Not sure I like that. Imo the case officer leads the discussion in the forum. Yes. Internally.... maybe too, since he has the most knowledge about the case. BUT every member should be reading the thread anyway (right now would be no problem, we don't have THAT many) and IMO the decision should be made by all the members, not the 2 case officers like in your case. I think right now it's per vote, that should stay. And then Buh get's the recommendation. And acts.

Otherwise no problem basically with everything you've written... sounds all very organized, maybe too much almost, but ok, probably is needed. Do they need to follow Robert's rules of Order?

The fine guidelines, not sure like guidelines, leave the committee the freedom to decide. The committee will hopefully change members occasionnally, not have 8/10 guys that stay for 20 years, with written rules they are bound by them, and changing them takes time... better leave them more freedom to decide, it's common sense after all, and precedents are a powerful "rule" too. Plus respect wishes for leniency by the "victim" (insults, hacking etc.) too.

Languages represented: Yep, as many as possible. BUT, just to make it clear, I believe it is clear to the majority, but fairly sure not to everybody. That is not there to protect the people of your language or country, as some IMO understand it, but to ensure that the committee is able to communicate with as many people as possible.

Opening of threads by FC members: Yes, in some cases good, necessary (Aux in the Italia case for example, the only thing he did right in that one), but the FC Members should not be the case chasers. Why? Fairness should be a concern for EVERY user, the more active the FC becomes in opening cases, the less normal users do it. If somebody in a race admits a multi, even now the majority thinks, ah well, a FC member will see it.

Action by Buhmann:

Put labels on the cases I say. Some cases need to be dealt with more swiftly. A multi, admitted multi, there action should be taken immediately (ah, that's why I'm not convinced about guidelines too, for example if now it was found out that I don't only have Petit Singe, but also Chaos Team, then with my experience I think the team to be deleted (or banned) should be Petit Singe) in the guidelines it says second team... but every case is different, length of the multi, experience of the manager, can't codify everything. Bakc to the Buhmannaction: Multis, other thins like that, get the "RED" label, and Buh sees that and takes action faster. Is asked to act faster at least. (But we all know that Multis are complicated since Buh has to contact them etc.) Other stuff, the ape calling Samurai bad names... if it takes 1 month like last time, everybody will survive... Faster is better, yes, but Buh is working 2 jobs basically, the one for money and the one that hopefully will be for money one day, RSF, can't "force" him to do boring stuff like this superfast. And I'm against automatic action without Buh's approval. So let him have his time, but important cases that need to be resolved fast, teamattacks without reaction that falsify a stage race, multis, get a "urgent" label. Rathter do those in 2 days and the insults in 2 months than everything after 1 week.

Openness to the public hasn't been discussed:

IMO an important point.
- FC members should be public.
- Discussion and votes should be private. ALWAYS. Leaking that should be fineable.
- NO internal action, proposals without a fairness thread. Ok, discussions Roby calls FL a moron, FL doesn't complain... the committee discusses if a topic should be opened anyway since it disrupts the peaceful environment... (I don't know if that works technically, or then a case is created immediately)
- The case officer should keep the public informed about the progress of the case. Meaning once a recommendation is sent to Buh, a post: Recommendation sent to Buh should be posted. And once Buh acted again. Case closed.
- Minimize PN discussions. Bad for the FC if one member (case officer) has to report everything, bad for the second party if there is one if one discusses in private. In case of multis, ok, maybe necessary or cheats, to keep them from becoming public knowledge, but otherwise a FC member should never contact somebody per PN. If he gets one... ok
- Sitting problems.. make the FC part private.

Publication of the punishment: So far none other than the guy who pays the fine is informed. Most of the time.
- IMO the FC members should be informed. Resp. inside the FC thingy a list is kept, automatically, Petit Singe 583'251 for calling FL a moron.
- In cases of insults the victim should be informed too. But, he/she shouldn't publicize it. So he get's an ingame notice: Petit Singe fine 583'251. You are not allowed to divulge this information to others, unless "name of team" does it him/herself. (itself in the case of FL and ZL)
- Multiaccounts, action taken at least should be posted in the thread. That can be done by the case officer of course, he should get the info when Buh acted.
- Team-attacks etc. Not really sure, here too maybe a public note would be ok. Or maybe in the race chat directly if it's a stage race.
- Racism etc, IMO can/should be posted in the thread.
- Hacking, we had cases, here IMO the victim has a say too.. Talentfrei whose training once was changed by a sitter said to Buh, ok, no need to publicize the sitters name. Which Buh then didn't. Otherwise maybe could be publicized, after all it's a risk to have that guy as a sitter. (In those cases the fairness threads will obviously be "Training changed" without names, often don't know who changed it, many sitters around (I want back the "team-sentence" I used to change that one when sitting...)

Tenure of the members... IMO we have the same problem in all committees, somebody who starts well, grows tired, does less and less and is still there due to Buhmann's lazyness... So would make sense to introduce some sort of tenure. Other possibility a "head" who has the hiring buttons, but then the risk is something like in the other and bigger crisis committee, the naitons committee happens, where the head is actively sabotaging the game by refusing to do his job. So maybe a limited time period that HAS to be extended by Buhmann would be an idea... 1 month before the expiration a red alarm goes off for Buh, he then has to extend guys or not.. something like that...

[NoPikouze]

What about live reactions to stuff during races ? Sorry no time to read...

[Samurais]

Wenn man kein englisch kann wird man hier scheinbar immer mehr zur randfigur.

[team fl]

Wenn man kein englisch kann wird man hier scheinbar immer mehr zur randfigur.

Sogar Bergwerk hat es geschafft, sich mit dem Google Translator einen Überblick über das Thema zu verschaffen. Ich denke das schaffst du auch. Sobald du das hast, kannst du gerne deine Meinung dazu hier auch auf Deutsch mitteilen, bevor du dich total marginalisiert fühlst (sorry für das Fremdwort, liest sich aber so schön). Dankeschön.

[team fl]

Looong post, learn from the ape, be short and concise.

So far the FC is an advisory panel, that should stay that way. So Buhmann not really a member, just the big boss. The most important job for the FC is:
REMIND Buhmann of all the fairness stuff going on. That basically happens through the existence of the committee itself. By seeing a list ingame..Second job is gather the facts for Buh and recommend a punishment. Basically so that Buh doesn't even have to read the fairness forum anymore.

That should stay that way IMO.
The fairness committe in NO CASE should be able to act independently right now. In the future if we had a FC that has the trust of the community, that can be trusted to do the right thing, we could think about limited powers. Right now no.

Hmm. Interesting remark. I think this is the Problem Franconia and I have discussed too: Time vs. Power. And yes, I agree that with THIS FC we have now, it should be the way Roby describes it. But preferably, the FC changes to a well trusted body of Fairplay and we can discuss about a swift solution for the case management.

Then FL says: 8 members 6 case dealers, 2 coordinators. Ok with the coordinators, makes it easier who deals with the case. But IMO the coordinators should be case officers too. They just decide or ask somebody to take over a case, instead of an internal discussion, makes it easier, but should deal with cases themselves too. .

8? I'd go for 10... just because not always everybody will be around, being of, holidays, no time, something.. with only 8 there might be only 4 there or so at some point, make it 10. Not everybody has time every day.

Then you say 2 case officers per case? I'd say one is enough. But ok...If it's high maintenance cases involving the ape probably 2 are necessary

Case officer: Can the 2 fighers if it's an insult topic demand another case officer?

The numbers are of course open for debate. I also think: The more, the better. And yes, I also favour a solution where the coordinators also deal with cases ("Personalunion").

I thought about two officers per case because of the four eyes principle or the two-man rule. In the best case, this is not needed, because there will be more than one case dealer present in the public discussion automatically. In the best case. And I expect a lot of cases involving the Ape

Decision making:

Not sure I like that. Imo the case officer leads the discussion in the forum. Yes. Internally.... maybe too, since he has the most knowledge about the case. BUT every member should be reading the thread anyway (right now would be no problem, we don't have THAT many) and IMO the decision should be made by all the members, not the 2 case officers like in your case. I think right now it's per vote, that should stay. And then Buh get's the recommendation. And acts.

I just wanted the responsibility for a case to be clearly assigned. I would also prefer a system where as much as possible, in the best case everybody from the FC would join a discussion an the decision making for a case. And I support the voting system you mentioned. So this may stay, yes.

[quote="Robyklebt]Otherwise no problem basically with everything you've written... sounds all very organized, maybe too much almost, but ok, probably is needed. Do they need to follow Robert's rules of Order? [/quote]

Wtf are Robert's rules of Order?

The fine guidelines, not sure like guidelines, leave the committee the freedom to decide. The committee will hopefully change members occasionnally, not have 8/10 guys that stay for 20 years, with written rules they are bound by them, and changing them takes time... better leave them more freedom to decide, it's common sense after all, and precedents are a powerful "rule" too. Plus respect wishes for leniency by the "victim" (insults, hacking etc.) too.

Perhaps I did not state this clearly enough: The penalty guidelines should be treated as a framework, in which the FC members can chose an appriopriate penalty. Yes, RSF Fairplay is very complex as it involves users on different levels of experience, background, fairplay history, context of the case, and so on. I say it again: the guidelines SHOULD NOT be seen as binding rules! Of course the common sense is much more important. To state myself again: the FC has the power to act in the spirit of the game. The guidelines should just give them an indication, not more, not less. But in the end, I think we have the same idea about it.

Languages represented: Yep, as many as possible. BUT, just to make it clear, I believe it is clear to the majority, but fairly sure not to everybody. That is not there to protect the people of your language or country, as some IMO understand it, but to ensure that the committee is able to communicate with as many people as possible.

yes, yes, yes. completely agree.

Opening of threads by FC members: Yes, in some cases good, necessary (Aux in the Italia case for example, the only thing he did right in that one), but the FC Members should not be the case chasers. Why? Fairness should be a concern for EVERY user, the more active the FC becomes in opening cases, the less normal users do it. If somebody in a race admits a multi, even now the majority thinks, ah well, a FC member will see it.

Agree. But I think in those cases where nobody reports but a clear and severe violation of fairplay rules has happened, also a FC member should have the right to open a thread. Italia cycling is just an example how it should not have happened

Action by Buhmann:

Put labels on the cases I say. (...)

Sounds good.

Openness to the public hasn't been discussed:

IMO an important point.
- FC members should be public.
- Discussion and votes should be private. ALWAYS. Leaking that should be fineable.
- NO internal action, proposals without a fairness thread. Ok, discussions Roby calls FL a moron, FL doesn't complain... the committee discusses if a topic should be opened anyway since it disrupts the peaceful environment... (I don't know if that works technically, or then a case is created immediately)
- The case officer should keep the public informed about the progress of the case. Meaning once a recommendation is sent to Buh, a post: Recommendation sent to Buh should be posted. And once Buh acted again. Case closed.
- Minimize PN discussions. Bad for the FC if one member (case officer) has to report everything, bad for the second party if there is one if one discusses in private. In case of multis, ok, maybe necessary or cheats, to keep them from becoming public knowledge, but otherwise a FC member should never contact somebody per PN. If he gets one... ok
- Sitting problems.. make the FC part private.

fully agree in all points.

Publication of the punishment: So far none other than the guy who pays the fine is informed. Most of the time.
- IMO the FC members should be informed. Resp. inside the FC thingy a list is kept, automatically, Petit Singe 583'251 for calling FL a moron.
- In cases of insults the victim should be informed too. But, he/she shouldn't publicize it. So he get's an ingame notice: Petit Singe fine 583'251. You are not allowed to divulge this information to others, unless "name of team" does it him/herself. (itself in the case of FL and ZL)
- Multiaccounts, action taken at least should be posted in the thread. That can be done by the case officer of course, he should get the info when Buh acted.
- Team-attacks etc. Not really sure, here too maybe a public note would be ok. Or maybe in the race chat directly if it's a stage race.
- Racism etc, IMO can/should be posted in the thread.
- Hacking, we had cases, here IMO the victim has a say too.. Talentfrei whose training once was changed by a sitter said to Buh, ok, no need to publicize the sitters name. Which Buh then didn't. Otherwise maybe could be publicized, after all it's a risk to have that guy as a sitter. (In those cases the fairness threads will obviously be "Training changed" without names, often don't know who changed it, many sitters around (I want back the "team-sentence" I used to change that one when sitting...)

Sounds good to me too.

Tenure of the members... IMO we have the same problem in all committees, somebody who starts well, grows tired, does less and less and is still there due to Buhmann's lazyness... So would make sense to introduce some sort of tenure. Other possibility a "head" who has the hiring buttons, but then the risk is something like in the other and bigger crisis committee, the naitons committee happens, where the head is actively sabotaging the game by refusing to do his job. So maybe a limited time period that HAS to be extended by Buhmann would be an idea... 1 month before the expiration a red alarm goes off for Buh, he then has to extend guys or not.. something like that...

Haven't thought about that, but I see the point and know that his happens that people get lazy after a time. In the best case, a FC member who gets tired of the job just resignes and leaves the space to a new and motivated member. Like your solution with the limited tiem perio that HAS to be extended by Buhmann.

[Zentaron]

[offtopic] Why everybody is talking about Football Clubs at a cycling manager?[/offtopic]

[Quick]

The wholefairplaything wont work without 1 person: BUHMANN! And thats the biggest problem actually... he's nearly inactive.

[Robyklebt]

It won't work fast. That's true... but it can work better than it does now.