[quote=@Lady Amalthea]
[@ArenaSnow] I have seen this done before on other forums - It can both work and fail, as with all things. The best system I have witnessed before was when there were a set of nominees placed from both staff and members of the community. Yes, the final say would have to lay with Mahz since he is the Admin. (Sorry but Hank would not do for this since he while he is the co-admin, he is part of the moderation staff) - General vote after ~background check~ - The check would include checking through the previous posts of a member and any complaints made against them, as well as a time frame for people to post their concerns for each. All pro's and con's for each would need to be listed out before a final vote is taken. 

	Who they report to, it would be Mahz, but they wouldn't have power persay, only the standing of recommendation for or again said ban/staff member. 

	Now, I do understand that this is a another level bureaucracy and that is something I am normally against. Yet due to the current issues, it does not seem that a compromise would be found. I am more than open to better ideas, this is just a suggestion for something in the meantime. 

	Personally I don't think it would even be a suggestion if there was some sort of checks and balances for the staff members and bans put into place, or any complaint on the forum for that matter. Just does not seem to be right now. I also feel that the staff should have been put through a more rigorous [i]check[/i] and monitored more carefully before being given a position of power on the forum. (Perhaps it would have avoided some of the issues.) 

	Some of the staff I have the upmost respect for, others I believe should be stripped of their title. I do not bother to report anymore because of several reasons. Yet that is neither here nor there but this has been an idea bouncing around in my head for about the last year. Due to present concerns I felt it was time to voice it. 

	Will it work? Lord only knows. It could, it could back fire completely. If anything, hopefully it will at least start a discussion of ways to better monitor not only the forum but the staff themselves. The forum could disintegrate into chaos without the mods, there would be no forum without its members. Both sides need a system of accountability; the members have that because of the staff. The staff does not and leaves the current environment far too lopsided.   

	Again, if anyone has a better suggestion or a way to make something work - I am all ears. This is just a simple suggestion to ring attention to the need. 
[/quote]

I am firstly stepping out of the discussion thus far, mostly because Mahz is the critical factor that has not been presented in the issue. Mods and members have beaten the issue to death and presented what they wanted - Mahz must make his input known for the discussion to move forwards.

That said, it sounds like we'd be introducing risk, bureaucracy and the possibility of the factors I mentioned for an issue that may be best resolved simply by having staff be more transparent in the first place. I don't want councils to enforce councils and things to create either a) a line of red tape on a site with a simple goal and simple structure or b) a "committee" that works about as effectively as I find they usually do. That is to say, without a very strong backbone, they'd flop at first sight of struggle.

This is stuff that is best done in the beginning, not as a kneejerk a decade later.

The core of solving this issue is with Mahz. The ball is in his court; and so all we are doing is circlejerking over the same bloody issue that we have all seen cases presented for, by mods and members. But this suggestion, I feel, simply does not fit in tune with the way the site works.