Community
Runescape
LoL & WoW
Xbox & Steam
User Center
I have invested a great deal of time and energy into writing this thread for our collective benefit.
Please refrain from locking it or preventing healthy debate, for it is the lack of the latter that has culminated in my writing of this thread.
Please refrain from locking it or preventing healthy debate, for it is the lack of the latter that has culminated in my writing of this thread.
Introduction...
Before surging into feedback, I'd like to give an overall clarification of my position on the Request a Pardon process. First and foremost, I feel that the section is an asset to the site. We’d be foolish to maintain that individuals are incapable of change; that people cannot better themselves or see the light of ethics. If we assume the worst of people, we will get nothing but the worst of them. With this in mind, I do not seek to undermine the worth of the system that affords pardons, but rather to critique the way in which pardons are presently made. Whilst I have suggested that the forum is an asset to the site, it can only be an asset if pardons continue to be awarded in a fair and appropriate manner. The section’s operational flaws ought to be identified and examined within this thread. I offer suggestions to ameliorate the section further into the thread, though I should first take a moment to identify the current flaws and decisional liabilities that are damaging the forum.
Current flaws and suggestions:
1.) The approach taken when assessing pardons
Conceptually, the Request a Pardon process is still young. Implemented only earlier this year by Sythe and I, we discussed the concept briefly prior to its implementation. We acknowledged the fundamental aspects that we hoped to include, and, in my opinion, they have generally materialized. There is a culture of openness and honesty that can be seen in the way that the process functions. All users are able to access the forum and can thus read requests and respective decisions. However, whilst the forum is open for all to see, thorough and extensive scrutiny is prohibited by the elite approach to decision-making. Whilst I acknowledge the knowledge and evaluative caliber that Administrators both historically and presently possess, we should also seek to acknowledge the general fallibility of humankind. Whilst Administrators are less likely than other users to make mistakes when it comes to Sythe.org decision-making, they are, by no measures, perfect.
The reason Administrators do not dictatorially choose staff member and Official Middlemen is that a collective approach is a better one. Whilst more time-consuming, a collective assessment of an issue results in thoroughness and good debate, both of which are integral to good decision-making. To improve the section, a collective approach ought to be introduced, as, presently, the system allows for one member to make a decision. From bias, corruption and general lack of information, the flaws of one member making a decision are readily visible. Far better is a collective approach, and so a collective approach should be taken. All staff should be able to contribute to the process, as to cultivate healthy debate and rigorous assessment. Rather than having one individual making the decision, introduce voting.
2.) Those receiving pardons and those being denied pardons
Interconnected with the aforementioned flaw, certain individuals undeserving of pardons go pardoned, yet those deserving of pardons go unpardoned. This is most clear when we juxtapose the pardon attempts of Draucia and Josh0is0here, for example.
In 2007, Josh was an incredible staff member and had given so much to this site. He had previously scammed. His reformed character was evident in his dedication to the site, kindness, and willingness to help others. Josh confessed to his earlier scamming and was banned in the interest of fairness. Since being banned, he has neither caused trouble nor ban evaded. Contrarily, he still attempts to help out, and offered assistance to me innumerably whilst I was on the staff. Regardless, Josh was not pardoned.
Draucia, however, was. Where Josh was banned almost three years ago, Draucia was banned earlier this year. In his pardon request, he flagrantly ignored the rules of the process. He did not accept his offences and instead attempted to smear my character and justification for his removal. Despite his leaking from the Staff Lounge, ubiquitous trouble-making and support of Syed and others with due contempt for the site, Pen pardoned him. I’ve been meaning to make an issue of this, as the decision was made abruptly and without consulting me. I’m sure that Pen was aware that I would not have pardoned Draucia in a million years were I still on the staff team. Nonetheless, my ban was reversed. Pen did not consult me or ask why I had banned Draucia; he just went ahead and unbanned him. Juxtaposed with the case of Josh, this either demonstrates poor individual judgment or a flawed system. I do not feel that the former is the case, but rather that the approach taken towards pardons prevented the correct decision from being made. Had a collective approach been taken, I highly doubt that Draucia would have been pardoned in the face of a legitimate and good user like Josh being refused a pardon. This is because the expression of relevant information and healthy debate could not occur. As with before, a collective approach remedies this flaw.
If you’ve read this thread in its entirety, I praise your patience and will to see this site improved. If not, that’s alright, but I feel that you may find some truth in the aforementioned paragraphs if you take a few moments to skim read them. I do not write this thread to cause drama, but rather to improve a section I perceive to be flawed.
