About high pardons @staff

I wouldn't mind a auto poll. Then again I tend to support people who are deserving and ones who should get a poll.

 

I have a feeling only high-profile users attract staff attention, so yeah I support this there should be a minimum amount of input before the 6 month waiting period

 

i agree completely.

 

That's what I'm talking about Arcus, you being a high profile member, they may listen!!!!

Nah kidding but yeah I think 6 months waiting is bullshit I don't even think there should be a waiting period it's a yes or no answer tbh, they either support or they don't.. 6 months isn't going to change jack shit in all honesty..

 

A person's character can change in 6 months...

 

If 5 people support a pardon, then 5 people will post support in most of the cases I've ever seen. I guarantee most staff look through pardons in a week-long window.

If someone's that keen to have every member of staff comment then they can ask them specifically to make a comment.

 

The only issue I see is the resources available for new staff members. I feel that with my pardon; had it gotten more exposure it may have been accepted faster than it was in the end (took like two years). The only way I got it was by individually contacting staff members to take a look at the pardon. On that note though, I'm not sure what a solution would be for that though other than making sure we have a strong ban-database so we can look up ban reasons, etc.

After saying that though, we all need to remember that high pardons are a privileged, not a right. If you were banned in the first place it means you did something wrong. In my case I ban evaded for self vouching. In others cases members have scammed (which I'm not certain they deserve a chance to come back anyway,) or have been banned for other reasons.

If you were banned for no reason, post a dispute. If you're posting a pardon understand that it's a privilege not a right.

 

Erm yes it can but it wont.. Once a scammer always a scammer

 

With that logic that would make half the staff scammers. People change.

 

So you are saying half the staff have scammed before, I dun diddly feel safe now diddly

 

using that logic then there shouldn't even be a pardon system.

some mods simply choose to ignore pardons even if they read it, which isn't fair. minimum you can do is post no support so that he can see that it got denied, not "not enough support in 1 week" when no one posted.

 

Fair? They scammed people on Sythe - why do they deserve anything unless we feel we trust them.

 

i didn't state they should be unbanned.
i simply stated instead of mods reading it and not posting (because they don't support) they simply type "no support"
edit; instead of writing not enough support in 7 days. not really asking for too much effort

 

And I'm saying why should we - privilege not right. If they "deserve" 5 supports they'll get them.

 

I don't see how it isn't fair? What's different to not getting enough support in 7 days, to getting countless "no support"? It's just staff time wasted

As far as I can see it
If staff think you deserve to be pardoned, they'll post support
If they don't think you deserve to be pardoned, they won't post

In my eyes I don't think there's anything wrong with the current system.

 

When I was a moderator, I read every single pardon. Those that I didn't reply to meant I didn't support it. I'm sure a lot of current moderators do the same thing.

 

i don't see why taking 20 seconds to post no support is such a big deal.
You're acting as if it will take countless hours to just post "no support"

 

And you're acting as if saying no support to several pardons makes a difference - it doesn't.

 

i give up
i don't understand what's all the fuss about taking 10 seconds to post no support.

 

I think there are several which are very obvious, and as Roary said they don't deserve an entire staff poll. The arguments here are being made for the pardons which really do have merit to them. Sometimes a user will get 3 supports, and that's all the feedback they receive, then are told to come back in 6 months.

If someone is being told to come back in 6 months, with a 3-0 support vs. no-support ruling, then that's a problem. It gives the impression that the user has a valid pardon, but is being denied simply because nobody bothered to post in the time period. I'm not saying that staff aren't reading them, but this is what it looks like to people browsing the forum.

I would suggest that any pardon which has <1 non-support remain open.