Veto...

Three could work as it would remove any personal issues between admins and members.

 

When I first discussed with Govind it was all about trusting the other admins, and sure we can trust them, but we don't want fuck-up cases. And those pardon who really need to be vetoed will surely get 3 votes to be vetoed and not just single-person veto, archiving and done.

I know that even if you all (admins) trust another admin's decision, it's better (Knowing that there are more than 4 admin) to have at least 2 votes to prevent ANY (if ever) abuse.

As a person who came with partial ideas while Govind wanted to remove the whole system, I'm all in for the 3 votes requirement Richard.

So... let's take it

 

If we went by this rule, I'd have been banned in 2007 because I told people I was female. That's 'shady' to most people.

 

I think two admins to veto seems good. Though maybe if an admin had to give a reason for the veto could be a better alternative, that way people can't use accuse of power abuse and such.

 

Support the removal of the veto process altogether, i think it should go to a vote with no one (outside of sythe himself) being able to trump everyone elses decision, whats the point of making the support/dont support type system we have with pardons when its really just an admins decision whether it happens or not. Glad sythe saw this thread this time, when x399 presented a similar idea admins made it out like a witch hunt and took it personal accusing people of not trusting their judgment ofcourse it was promptly closed (by an admin who didnt want to give up the slightest bit of power no doubt)

A 3 admin vote would be more suitable than the current system but honestly i feel once 1-2 make the choice to veto that the others may feel obligated to agree. Hopefully not but it seems like the staff is pretty cliquish and some opinions may be skewed in favor of the general opinion.

 

Maybe shady wasn't the best choice of words. Anyone who seems suspicious or malicious, I mean. Concerning solely market activities and such.

 

I really like that idea. I believe that vetoes are and have been handed out much too hastily at the moment.

 

The point of Vetoing is to quickly deny someone? They deserve to be denied in the normal process, if the admins judgement is correct then the staff won't support their pardon anyway and it's not like it takes a lot of time to post your opinion on the pardon. Veto's as they are(1 admin) only allow for errors in judgement.

 

Should take more than 1 admin to veto, i looked thru the archives of pardons and saw a load of them where fireZ just said veto and that was that no explination or anything.

 

Yup. He's well known for that.



Vetos should require input from others. I've seen pardons vetoed that I KNOW were biased and unfair.

 

I agree with others, it is probably the whole "no reasoning" aspect. Three might seem like a lot, but maybe they can convince others or provide reasoning in the post so that the staff can know why said admin is vetoing...

Either way, looks like Sythe is down so =p.

 

I never really got the veto. If an admin wanted to deny someone i'm sure they could just post no support and post their reasoning and other mods would change their support posts?

 

I agree with this. The current system can be based of bias too easily.

 

I was never required to give explanations.

Link me to them



2 admins is fine imo.

 

We encourage staff to be independent thinkers and not just go along with what everyone else thinks, and most of the time that works out well.

 

But if there is a veto they are pretty much forced to go along with it?

 

You can still challenge a veto. I was only challenged 1 or 2 out of like 100+.

 

No one knows that. You close the thread after you veto.

 

Well, I agree with the veto system based on the principle that rules were made NOT to be broken then forgiven. If you suck enough metaphorical dick, its easy to become pardoned then resume your ways. Veto allows someone who is more neutral to the offense to evaluate what has happened and then decide that it isn't correct no matter how convincing someone may seem to others.

 

That's going the extra mile for ya!

Seriously though, even if it doesn't change (Sythe seemed to like the idea so much as to even make it 3), I still think that at least reasoning would make sense for the curious normies as well as perhaps the pondering moderators who may or may not understand the situation fully. Also, it would be good for the person being vetoed to better understand why. Some people don't give up unless you show them solid proof that you've caught them.