Re: Pardon System Changes

This x1,000,000

It only takes 1 admin to completely end a pardon, which is not balanced in any way, shape, or form. It would keep the process fair, and would still allow for certain users to be denied by admins outright.

 

Are you guys forgetting that a pardon is basically admitting that you were wrong, and your ban was warranted, and putting your fate in the hands of the staff?

You should be thankful the system even exists. In any case, there are no vetoes I wasn't involved in that I don't agree with.

 

Wow. That is probably one of the most arrogant things I've ever seen you say. We should be thankful the system exists? Excuse me? It is nice to have it there, but it benefits both banned users and Sythe.org mutually, so pinning it on people who have been pardoned, such as my self, is just downright rude.

Your entire plan is flawed. No matter how much a person seems to have changed, or how much a staff member wants to think they have changed, there is no way to be 100% sure until they've proven it, which is why things like Market bans and TWC's are the perfect safety net to confirm that. Eliminating those is just like saying "Well I sure hope we're right, YOLO!".

Also with the two admin veto thing, just because there hasn't been any cases yet, doesn't mean there won't be in the future. Having 2 admins veto is just an extra step that will help in some cases. If you support all the vetoes, then go ahead and support them to make it two, no big deal. There is no reason not to implement it unless you just don't want to have to go out of your way to post "I vote to veto this".

And the next time you decide to showcase your amazing PR skills in a post, I suggest you remember that systems such as these benefit the banned user as well as Sythe.org as a whole.

 

DING DING DING

http://www.sythe.org/forumdisplay.php?f=424

There are plenty of things that need to be done instead of fixing an already-working system.

 

Ideally, all pardons would indeed be a mutual benefit. I feel the current system was too lenient and the indefinite amount of time meant that virtually anyone would eventually be pardoned, especially seeing as periodic database prunes delete relevant posts about them, if they are old enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

This is why I'm ramping up difficulty and reducing the amount of time for people to request pardons.

Eliminating those is actually eliminating those people who wouldn't be pardoned without those things. If we're going to let someone back as if we forgive them for their offenses, why should we accept them with any conditions? The point of this is to reduce the number of pardons granted, not to give more freedom to people who are pardoned.

Are you confusing a pardon with a parole? High pardons were never supposed to be conditional. You are either fully forgiven or you are not forgiven.

I trust the judgement of fellow administrators enough that when I see one veto a pardon, I will assume it is for a good reason and second that veto unconditionally.

 

You are talking like the current system has caused problems because it is to lenient. Please tell me how many people have caused a problem since being pardoned. I doubt it's that many, and if there are some, well that's unavoidable. It's going to happen with or without the new system.

If you make it harder for people to pardon, then they're not going to try at all, they're just going to vade, and that will just leave us with a bunch of ban evaders, which means your system is just going to hurt more than anything. It's fine how it is, don't fix it if it isn't broken.

 

I personally hate the admin veto thing, and agree that there should be more admin votes on it before one can just dismiss the entire pardon. Govind, you say if you see another administrator vote on it, then you would vote the same thing. Is this not what you just said that sectionals are doing, and what you're trying to prevent? This is band wagoning.

 

Not supporting a pardon is a much more trivial decision than supporting a pardon. Are you forgetting that these users are banned for correct reasons according to our rules? If someone on staff (I don't care if it's an Administrator, or any staff member) has a reservation about letting them back as if their offenses can be looked past, that should be taken into more consideration than the word of the user requesting the pardon.

 

There is nothing wrong with the current system.

If you can show that the current system is flawed and that to many scams have resulted from it, then I will take this more seriously, and I think everyone will, but just simply saying "the current system is to lenient" is no reason at all, because it's been working perfectly fine.

With what you're suggesting we're going to have less honest pardons and more abundant amounts of ban evaders trying to stay in the community.

 

I don't appreciate you replying to me in bold and red. Ironic that you're calling my posts disrespectful.

Anyway, while there have been pardons where the user has ended up banned again (hell, the user whose case the pardon system was created for has ended up banned again) these reforms are more preemptive than anything: vBulletin 4 is coming, and with that, inevitable data loss with the upgrade, along with perpetual database pruning.

We cannot have people requesting pardons if posts relevant to their cases and staff members who were involved in them are gone. This will happen down the road if a time limit is not enforced. A year is plenty of time.

 

Im sorry if red offends you...?

So how do any of your changes help that possible issue? The only thing you're new system does is make things more complicated for people trying to pardon, and for the staff dealing with the pardon. You still haven't shown any proof that it is a problem, or that it might be a problem other than that a few posts might be lost.

This happens anyways, but it doesn't mean its an issue. Over time people tend to change a lot, and so should we deny them simply because we don't have enough information about them? Please show me cases where this has been an issue, because again, this has never been a problem.


Also lets not get away from the admin veto thing here. Admins don't have absolute knowledge or wisdom, and their decisions shouldn't necessarily be regarded as ones that are without fault. If you support a veto that someone gave, then post your support, make it two, and then it's done. It's not that difficult to do, and it makes for a more balanced system.

 

Bold text is generally considered disrespectful, like typing in all caps. This is standard etiquette for posts on the Internet.

The time limit will make it more likely that the users posts exist and the staff who banned the user are still contactable (if not still on staff). Not sure how this makes it more difficult for the staff dealing with the pardon at all.

You're just asserting your beliefs about the pardon system. Information about a banned user is very important if we're considering letting them back with a pardon. Spin it however you like, a pardon is an amnesty granted to the user requesting it, in full knowledge of their crimes. They should not be given out lightly.

They could be lying about their offenses, holding back information, or deliberately not mentioning staff members involved in their case to prevent proper investigation of themselves. I don't know if you've noticed this, but many people who use this site are dishonest. If this information disappears, it is not right to just give them the benefit of the doubt that they've "changed".

With regard to the other comment, about admin vetoing, that was never mentioned in my original post; it was brought up by someone's reply. I agree, it is an outdated rule and dictatorial.

 

Your logic is making no sense at all. So you want users to request pardons within a 12 year span, when it's least likely that they have changed, but when a great deal of time has passed, and it's likely they've changed, they can't pardon? That's ridiculous. It makes for a finite system with no chance of being let back in, and you know what that is going to cause? Vading. We mine as well just let them pardon instead of having them become a ban evader.

Edit: This is something that needs admin attention and could bring lots of users to the site http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?p=11542746#post11542746 Why aren't you working on things like that instead of working on things that constrict the amount of people here?

 

Love how you completely ignored the points I made.

No evidence? No testimony? No pardon. We can't act based solely on the word of a user who was banned correctly per the rules. That's the point behind the time limit. The other change, about removing condition from unbans, well, that is how the pardon system was originally intended to work. It's fallen into that with people confusing it with a parole system.

 

I didn't ignore it..? The chance of there being 0 evidence and 0 testimony is highly unlikely, and if cases do arise like that, why should they be auto denied? If it's been that long and there is literally no trace of them, then I think there is a good chance they've changed in that time span, and if it's a big ban like Sigex, I am sure everyone will know about it anyways. With your system there will be users who are caught up in that quandary who have changed, but are going to be SOL just because of this ridiculous rule. That is another case where a market ban/TWC could be helpful, but noooo you want to remove that too. Also it doesn't have to be perfectly defined as a High Pardon system to work efficiently. If you're so upset about the definition then maybe it should be changed to the "Parole System", either way it doesn't matter, it serves its purpose, and it helps bring back in members who can be an asset to the community.

Again: This is something that needs admin attention and could bring lots of users to the site http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?...6#post11542746 Why aren't you working on things like that instead of working on things that constrict the amount of people here?

 

It's only highly unlikely if the person requests a pardon within a year. How many pardons (aside from those where the user came clean of their own accord, which is handled by a separate clause) have been posted over a year after the original incident?

The restrictions on the pardon system aren't meant to only prevent "big bans like Sigex" from being unbanned; they're meant to prevent the majority of pardon requests from going through. Do you not understand what kind of user the pardon system was meant for? They aren't for letting people back for no reason other than that they're genuinely sorry about whatever they did to get themselves banned. They're for letting people back because they're genuinely sorry and because they were exceptional users who contributed much to the community, and deserve a second chance.

If someone requests a pardon over a year down the road, it has either already been denied, or the story behind their ban is old, and probably inaccessible because either or both the posts or the staff members involved are gone. This is going to happen with the rate of growth of the site; the time between prunes being necessary will shorten.

I can think of a bit more than half a dozen pardons that have been granted that I actually would be sad to see undone (and among these are bans that actually were unfair and probably should have been handled via disputes).

Not sure why you think that's your call. We do read the suggestions forum, believe me, and we've tried adding sections for many new "promising" games that have ended up with about 10 posts in total after being open for months. I highly doubt this will be any different, but if you are that adamant on it, I can ask Sythe his opinion.

 

So what I've gathered from that is that you think people are pardoned too easily, and that they shouldn't have been. Please tell me how your opinion on that makes it an actual problem? Have those users that were pardoned been a problem for the site? I highly doubt it. In fact I can't think of anyone recently who has been pardoned and is a danger to the site. So you want to restrict these people simply because you feel they shouldn't be pardoned. Well then we're accomplishing nothing. If they don't get pardoned, they'll vade, and that's going to solve nothing. You mine as well give them the chance.

It's common sense.

 

The pardon system hasn't existed forever. Not sure why you view limitations on an amnesty system for bans that are self-confessed to be warranted as harmful to the site. I am opposed to letting users who otherwise should be banned back lightly, because I cannot trust that they've truly reformed in most cases.

Case and point: the very user whose case brought about the creation of the pardon system is now one of the most hated banned members on the site.

 

The Pardon system has never been about just forgiving those who are sorry, its always been about those who have contributed, there was a large time when we would only consider users who Had broken rules but hard largely contributed to the site, that rule eventually slipped and we've allowed a lot more people back now.

x339, you're arguing the point that because these people haven't broken rules again then pardoning them was fine because they must have changed, right?
So essentially if a long time has passed then someone should be able to be pardoned, even if they were an asshole, broke multiple rules (which obviously led to their ban) and then they return claiming they have 'changed', this basically makes the point of 'permanent bans' obsolete, we could just ban someone for 2 years and then they'll be different upon return. That isn't fair, its a disservice to those who got him banned or banned him, especially if he was a scammer, even if he did pay the user back, that still doesn't change the fact that they deceived a member and stolen from them, no member should be able to be dissolved of their rulebreakings because they just waited it out.

I fully believe that the High pardon system should have a almost sense of guidelines but not rules, therefore allowing exceptions in cases when consensus is reached, 3 defining rules should exist.
1) You must admit to everything in your pardon, you must list how you have made contributions to sythe and why you are legible for pardon.
2) It must be at least x amount of time since your last pardon
3) Must reach 5 supports

Then for that pardon to be successful, the USL voting must consider:
1) The length of time since their ban/last high pardon.
2) Why they were banned
3) their contributions to sythe and why it would be beneficial to support
4) making sure conditional support is addressed properly, if this pardoned person is only to be pardoned with a market ban and TwC, should we really be pardoning them?
5)other things this thread addressed/we already might address when USL voting is in place.

and regarding Vetoing, I personally dislike it, especially when its not necessary , I would prefer an explanation on why a user shouldnt be supported rather than A full on veto. Dictatorial actions should not be allowed.

 

Or this.

Single-Admin Vetoing is, from my point of view, just wrong.