Counter Strike Confederation

12:38 AM

Why would you like to join the Arbiter Committee? Arbiters are a very important balance for the operations of CSC, and I want to help.

12:38 AM

What prior experience do you have, if any, do you think is relevant for this position?

S5-6 AGM of SAV

S6 Head of Media

S7-8 Admin

12:39 AM

Staff Nomination: self nominated

@AVI | Fuffy 🏆

1

What do you think the most difficult part of being an arbiter will be for you?

TFR | 42Firehawk

What do you think the most difficult part of being an arbiter will be for you?

Two things: 1) I am involved in so many facets of CSC that I may be required to recuse myself from any cases that are related to said committees/members. 2) It takes a lot of work to get my thinking into writing. I know you write up a LOT to explain your reasoning on these cases, so that will take a lot of effort.

What exactly do you think you can bring as an arbiter that others don't?

I am already familiar with the arbiter process having been around at their creation and watching them evolve during my time as admin. I also am very familiar with the rulebook given that time as admin/a rules committee member back in S6.

Response time is a common staff complaint. What do you think is a reasonable response time for a case that gets to your role, and do you believe there could be systems put into place that could expedite the process while still maintaining fairness and consistency?

I cannot control other arbiters' response times, but set deadlines for each step of the process is important.

3:13 AM

Even just clearly communicating what is happening is a big help, which was one of my priorities as an admin. A lot of this however will be on the head arbiter.

AVI | Fuffy 🏆

Two things: 1) I am involved in so many facets of CSC that I may be required to recuse myself from any cases that are related to said committees/members. 2) It takes a lot of work to get my thinking into writing. I know you write up a LOT to explain your reasoning on these cases, so that will take a lot of effort.

is the second point here sarcasm? (genuine question) (edited)

FA | ZyraReflex

is the second point here sarcasm? (genuine question) (edited)

to clarify, I ask this because arbiters are not historically known for giving detailed write-ups explaining their decisions

8:20 AM

(unless you meant internally)

AVI | Fuffy 🏆

Even just clearly communicating what is happening is a big help, which was one of my priorities as an admin. A lot of this however will be on the head arbiter.

I appreciate your response. I'm going to assume that you mean setting deadlines that are shorter than the already in place 7 day deadline, which is a great practice imo. I also appreciate your mindfulness that it is a team environment. With your time in different staff positions, I'm sure you'll be mindful that while the deadline is this day, you should probably have your input in earlier to give others on the team time to process your input. Best of luck!

FA | ZyraReflex

(unless you meant internally)

It could be internally I'm not sure, I just know I've seen paragraphs from Firehawk before. May not be an every arbiter thing but I think it is important to go into detail when needed.

COW | Saunce

I appreciate your response. I'm going to assume that you mean setting deadlines that are shorter than the already in place 7 day deadline, which is a great practice imo. I also appreciate your mindfulness that it is a team environment. With your time in different staff positions, I'm sure you'll be mindful that while the deadline is this day, you should probably have your input in earlier to give others on the team time to process your input. Best of luck!

Yes. There are multiple steps in the process and having shorter deadlines will let us complete said steps and check in at each deadline

Awaken

1

1

Do you believe that most cases should looked at with "did they break the rule Y/N" or do you think the context as to why something was done matters?

ATO | Assass1n

Do you believe that most cases should looked at with "did they break the rule Y/N" or do you think the context as to why something was done matters?

The rules themselves are written vague on purpose in order to consider context. Some cases are simple enough to just decide if they broke the be rule as a black and white, but many others will be more on considering the situation around a decision.

As an arbiter there are 3 different types of cases that are commonly dealt with. The first being an appeal where the person making said appeal is purely attempting to have an area to complain to the staff about their case, while having broken the rule and making no attempt to argue against that fact. The second being an appeal where the case isn't about the evidence, but rather that the evidence presented being across the line or not. (i.e. was the message sent political argument in bad faith or not, or other method where the evidence may not break the guidelines). The third being an appeal where the evidence may or may not prove sufficiently that the appellant committed the act (A case where the question isn't if the act broke the rules, but if the evidence is enough to prove the rules were broken.) Which of these cases do you think you'd have the most issue taking part in personally?

Scenario two will be the toughest, given it deals with the subjective nature of the rules. During my time in CSC I hope I've demonstrated I have the levelheadedness to oversee those cases with the best interest of CSC in mind.