Counter Strike Confederation

6:08 PM

Why do you want to be an Arbiter?

 I like being part of CSC. Ever since I've stepped down as mod, I've been looking for something to get me back into staff positions outside of GM.

What experience do you have, if any, that would help you in the position of Arbiter? I was mod for a few seasons so I'm pretty familiar with the behavior guidelines. If Player A is struck for being rude (Rule 10) to Player B, but claims that it was a joke, how would you rule this case and why?

 It is more than likely that I would uphold the strike, however I'd need to see evidence to see if the "joke" could reasonably seen as a joke before making a decision. Regardless of the intention of it being a joke, if someone feels genuinely insulted about something, they deserve to be respected. After working with the mod team for a few seasons, I know the type of discretion they use to determine if someone is being genuine when issuing strikes like rule 10, but there's always something that could have been missed.

Staff Nominator: @COW | Saunce

@COW | Saunce

+rep Saunce: was always fair and looked at issues from every pov, im sure will be a just arbiter as he was a mod

+rep saunce. Fair and just. I have full confidence he will excel in this role.

+rep he’s a cutie

1

+ rep Saunce, long time mod so he’s very well aware of the process would feel very comfortable with him in an arbiter position even if he teases me a lot

+rep saunce, did a great job as mod during their time in the committee previously. with their prior experience they're a slam-dunk candidate for arbiter.

As a former arbiter, I understand that there are times where the mods and admins might disagree with how the arbiters are approaching a case. If elected, do you plan on finding ways to better meet in the middle with the other parties or do you want to stick to your own opinions on cases? Are you wanting to find ways bolster the arbiter's abilities and suggest changes to the committee and/or the mods' behavior guidelines since you rule based on those guidelines?

I think it is important to respect the boundaries of other staff positions. If those boundaries aren't respected, we end up in a needless cycle of arguing and those in the highest power getting their way. I believe that the responsibilities of the arbiter have been clearly laid out in the arbiter handbook and should be strictly respected by admins, mods, and arbiters until a formal discussion is had between all parties. I do think there needs to be a way to address gaps in votes due to recusals. While the recent rule change will help limit the number of recusals per case, I believe other fallbacks can help to ensure there are always the same amount of votes per case. One potential rough idea would be a voluntary jury pool of approved backup arbiters to fill in when an arbiter feels it necessary to be recused from the case. More discussion would need to be had to flesh this all out. I do believe that the arbiters essentially function as an appellant court in the real world. Similar to appellant courts, the decisions of the arbiters help set precedents for rules on whether something is against the guidelines or not. However unlike appellant courts, the decisions of the arbiters are not made public, but there needs to be some way to further communicate these precedents to the guidelines to community mostly likely through collaborative amendments to the guidelines.

ATL | omA 🏆

As a former arbiter, I understand that there are times where the mods and admins might disagree with how the arbiters are approaching a case. If elected, do you plan on finding ways to better meet in the middle with the other parties or do you want to stick to your own opinions on cases? Are you wanting to find ways bolster the arbiter's abilities and suggest changes to the committee and/or the mods' behavior guidelines since you rule based on those guidelines?

^ great question btw

12:15 AM

Fun fact: Arbiters have 7 days to make a decision once the appealant has made their initial claims, however time sensitive punishments like mutes and MD bans can affect a players ability to play in matches and events. With that in mind, there can be some pressure to make decisions faster than others may feel comfortable doing so. How confident are you in your abilities to analyze and address provided evidence in a timely manner while still feeling that enough due diligence was done?

COW | Saunce

I think it is important to respect the boundaries of other staff positions. If those boundaries aren't respected, we end up in a needless cycle of arguing and those in the highest power getting their way. I believe that the responsibilities of the arbiter have been clearly laid out in the arbiter handbook and should be strictly respected by admins, mods, and arbiters until a formal discussion is had between all parties. I do think there needs to be a way to address gaps in votes due to recusals. While the recent rule change will help limit the number of recusals per case, I believe other fallbacks can help to ensure there are always the same amount of votes per case. One potential rough idea would be a voluntary jury pool of approved backup arbiters to fill in when an arbiter feels it necessary to be recused from the case. More discussion would need to be had to flesh this all out. I do believe that the arbiters essentially function as an appellant court in the real world. Similar to appellant courts, the decisions of the arbiters help set precedents for rules on whether something is against the guidelines or not. However unlike appellant courts, the decisions of the arbiters are not made public, but there needs to be some way to further communicate these precedents to the guidelines to community mostly likely through collaborative amendments to the guidelines.

your suggestion of a fallback for recused arbiters is interesting, could you expand on this or give another example of a fallback you believe could be beneficial?

COW | Saunce

Fun fact: Arbiters have 7 days to make a decision once the appealant has made their initial claims, however time sensitive punishments like mutes and MD bans can affect a players ability to play in matches and events. With that in mind, there can be some pressure to make decisions faster than others may feel comfortable doing so. How confident are you in your abilities to analyze and address provided evidence in a timely manner while still feeling that enough due diligence was done?

Great question Saunce, I think that arbiters have a duty to try to resolve any cases as soon as possible, especially when a player's eligibility is at risk. However, I don't think that arbiters should expedite decisions simply to make sure a decision is made before a match. While it would be unfortunate if someone were to miss out a game because a strike was overturned a day too late, I feel it would be unfair to the rest of the community that the arbiters made a decision without being 100% confident in their decision. They should keep in mind that while overturning punishment is part of the duties when applicable this also removes the strike hisotry, which still helps the appellant even if they end up serving the full punishment. As a tax auditor I am used to strict deadlines and have experience analyzing information at a deeper level. I have felt the affects of other individuals using their entire time available which leads to stress when last minute facts come up, and have a personal policy to ensure enough time for peer review of a decision is made.

ATL | omA 🏆

your suggestion of a fallback for recused arbiters is interesting, could you expand on this or give another example of a fallback you believe could be beneficial?

Ideally the pool would serve like a real life jury pool where people are randomly selected to serve when necessary. As with a normal jury pool, both sides should be able to accept or deny someone as a juror. Due to the access to privileged information, I don't necessarily think the csc juror pool should just be all the players. Perhaps a limited pool to eligible staff members or the pool consisting exclusively of prior arbiters.

12:28 AM

The juror would effectively serve as temp arbiter for that case and be held to the same standards as a normal arbiter in that case. Using prior arbiters would at the very least ensure that the community at some point trusted the individual to be an arbiter.

+rep saunce

9:36 AM

One of the smartest people I know, absolutely fit for the position

9:36 AM

I have no doubt he’ll be one of the best

9:36 AM

He’s got my vote

+rep saunce incredibly handsome and hardworking and caring individual