[Suggestion]Disallow the banning staff member from being anyhow associated with your ban dispute

[Code Monkey]

What rule do you wish to Edit/Add:

• Ban disputes are to be dealt with by 3 staff members, the original staff member that banned the user must not have a say in the situation.

Your version of the rule:

• Ban disputes are to be dealt with by 3 staff members, the original staff member that banned the user must not have a say in the situation, may not give their input on why they banned the user (including messaging of any kind), and may not be in the Teamspeak channel when the 3 independent staff members are discussing it. There may not be any contact of any kind between the investigating staff members and the staff member who issued the ban regarding the individual in question.

Why do you believe this rule should be Added/Edited:

I recently got shafted by this situation and felt it was extremely unfair. When I came into the staff channel a staff member had pretty much felt convinced I was innocent until the banning staff member convinced him otherwise. I am not saying what I did wasn't wrong but in order to have an independent and non-biased investigation this MUST change. This allows the investigating staff members to understand your side of the situation and redetermine whether or not it was okay without having the other staff member convince them differently. I ended up speaking with Bolli and he said they are not supposed to be in the channel in the first place but I want it written in the rules.

 

[Imperial Watch]

As previously mentioned, I would not mind the banning staff member to provide a brief account as to why they think the ban they issued is valid in the fist place. But to have them influence certain decisions; in for example the teamspeak channel where the decision as to whether or not the ban was valid in the first place, I disagree with.
If it was up to my preference, I would've preferred the staff member in question to provide a brief written summary as to why the ban should is valid (or invalid for that matter), much like how you would accuse some in an AR of breaking the rules, but in this case explain why they were guilty.

But there are always two sides to story, and preventing either side of explaining their ordeal would be a breach of principle when it comes to how I view things