Changes to punishments for uninvolved posts

[Avgar]

Lol, most of the "I'll take my warning" don't even stem from the courthouse. They stem from when administrators try to silence people's opinions.

Everyone has an opinion. If we allow just about anyone voice their opinions in courthouse cases (which would happen all the damn time in the courthouse these days) then the threads would be a mess (and they were).

Anyways,who is the judge of who is involved, what actually makes one involved ?

As I could be standing across the street from where it happened and claim I am involved but say that administrator didn't see me there, he gives me a 50% warning level due to administrator negligence ?

Show me the cases where administrator negligence happened in a situation that you described and we'll look into it. Perhaps it should be more explicitly defined what being involved means and what doesn't, fair enough. But when there's doubt then there's no punishment. You know full well people chime in most of the time when they have not even witnessed the situation and are just going by what is written in the thread or their own opinion, nothing else.

Also do moderators receive warning levels as they should, I am literally sick to the back teeth of reading threads in the courthouse and Reebs has stuck his nose in because he can.

Remove that right, only people who are involved, or are the administrator who is judging the case should be allowed to post.

Moderators are part of the staff team and can voice their opinion on court cases. They can even deal with court cases, investigate them, etc. From what I've seen Reebs doesn't post nonsense, but assessments of certain situations. If you can prove that moderators do not add to courthouse cases feel free to hit up the SAs with a forum PM and we may consider revoking the ability for moderators to deal with them.