Veto...

Through my time here I have seen many pardons "veto'd". While other staff support it an admin will come along and veto it. This makes the entire pardon system pointless as it can still be heavily biased.

Think about it, it's like a judge just deciding whether or not someone is guilty and overriding the jury. This will probably be closed by an admin but I just want to open peoples minds.

 

No Veto power at all.

Basically I'd probably have sectionals decide whether or not it goes to voting, if it goes to voting then globals + admins have a majority vote on the outcome. Alternatively you could do it this way... As the unbanning of members mainly affects the community they could decide ultimately whether or not the person deserves another chance, it would start with a voting stage which includes all staff and if it makes it past that stage then a anonymous poll is created and left open for around 3 days? This would work well as staff can filter through the ones which should get a chance and then there will be no uproars in the community.

 

No veto power. It goes off votes and administrators get 2 votes instead of 1 for the rest of the staff?

 

No support the veto system works well, I think that some people wonder why it was vetoed, so possibly add a reason if you veto it? But I think it should be changed a bit so it has to be vetoed by two admins, rather than just one, with a valid reason.

 

It would just be a waste of time though, because if one admin vetos it then there is a very good chance that none of the other admins will support it so there us no way that it would pass a USL poll. They usually have a good reason for vetos. However, I would like to see admins posting reasons for vetos instead of just veto'd. It would be a lot clearer that way.

Also why would you let the community vote? If all the staff agree that they're safe don't you trust their decision? I could see that being used maliciously by people getting all of their friends to block the vote.

Also this does happen in some rare cases, so your analogy is incorrect.

 

Maybe have like a checks and balance system? If 'X' amount of globals/sectionals vote to override the veto it can.

I agree sometimes it does seem a bit unfair when a staff just goes in a says veto'd. At least require a reason or something.

 

From my experience most of the vetoes I've seen could have also been done with a no-support or worst case dismissed in the Upper Lounge where the reason could be explained and deemed valid. Often I get a distinct feeling that the veto system gets abused or is used where a no-support vote would be perfectly valid. Basically get rid of the admin veto since there is no way that it should be used that can't be better used in the USL or later parts of the pardon system. As far as I am concerned many globals have judgement equal to or better than some of the admins' but remain global to fulfill a different role - there's nothing wrong with that, but I don't think it necessarily gives the right to overrule the globals' judgement when it could often be just as good.

 

No support, it's fine as it is. If a staff member or another admin decides they want a pardon unvetoed and for it to run for the 7 days, they can just talk to the vetoing admin (at least that's what happened in the past).

Then again most vetoed pardons don't even make to the USL most of time, so honestly vetoting if anything just saves unnecessary time being wasted.

 

What I first suggest is having at least two admins post supporting veto before it can actually be closed.

But I also like the idea of removing it.

 

This

Nothing against FireZ (using you as refrence because i'v seen it before) that say someone ends up getting banned and for some reason FireZ may not like this person at all, for what they did, or just some other reason...Then that person would NEVER have a chance at getting pardoned even if they would deserve to be pardoned.

So i think 2 admins that would think the person should have NO way of coming back, would it then be fair to "Veto" their pardon.

 

I still firmly believe that a veto should require 2 administrators to agree before it is final.

 

I agree with Verts on this that 2 vetos and it's fine. Otherwise not just a single veto.

 

I thought you guys already implemented the two vote system back when it was brought up last?

 

Works for me!

 

That's even better. Now it will be a fairer balance.

 

Suggested this a long time ago and was told by FireZ and all other staff members that he had perfect judgement.

Support.

 

I like this very much

It will get chaotic though if people start posting pardons again after this..

 

I personally think any sort of shady character should just be banned, the current system is a privilege as it is. I think one veto, but with a reason or opinion also.. I don't like seeing a straight out "Veto".