Request a Pardon - 2 Step System

I've seen a lot of people recently applying for pardons before paying back their debts. I believe that pardons should be a distinct 2 step process:

#1 - Reconcile Debts

#2 - Request Pardon

#1 - Reconcile Debts

Before any user is pardoned, they should post a request to reconcile debt. The mods will look at their ban, and to the best of their knowledge, provide a list of the debts owed by the user. The user will then be required to repay all victims. If any victims are not available at the time of reconciliation, a highly trusted user/staff member will hold a bond for the banned users' debts.

These bonds will be donated to Sythe (minus a holding fee to provide incentive to bond-holders) if the victims do not reclaim their owed funds within 6 months of the reconciliation payment.

#2 - Request a Pardon

Once reconciliation payment has been confirmed as received by an upper staff member, THEN a user may post a pardon. Any pardon made without step #1 completed will be notified that it is invalid until the reconciliation payments are completed and approved.

Why Does This Help?

This 2 step process will provide incentive for banned members to repay their debts before seeing the outcome of a pardon. By completing this step, the banned users are being shown that without paying their debts, they are not eligible to discuss rejoining the website. I believe this will result in a higher proportion of victims being repaid for scams, and a much smoother pardon system, which focuses on fixing scams first and foremost.

 

No support, just take my case as example. I couldn't afford $1050 all in one go to refund victims of my hacking, if I didnt get pardoned it would take 2x longer to refund second half. If partial refund was made in order to pardon it would be better than your idea

 

We do usually encourage people to pay back debts before offering supports/no supports. If they can't get in touch of someone, however, usually repayments have been taken by staff.

The argument presented against this, and I suppose your bond idea, is that if we're pardoning someone then we should trust them to repay their debts should the users present themselves in the future. If we can't trust them to be pardoned and seek the users to repay, why should we pardon them?

Ultimately, by pardoning in the first place, the user is showing remorse and willingness to repay those scammed (usually) and so there really shouldn't be a problem of "you unbanned them and they're refusing to repay me" scenarios.

 

Your case was a special scenario. By current Sythe.org rules, you shouldn't have been unbanned. For debt reconciliation, in your case, you could just post what you posted on your pardon. If moderators believe that you are not a danger to the site, and that you should be unbanned in order to repay the victims, then that's fine. However, in the vast majority of cases we would not allow a user to be unbanned in order to repay their debts.

The problem is not people being unbanned without repayment, it's people being given an opinion on their pardon before repayment. If someone scams $100 on Sythe and asks for a pardon, before repaying the $100, and moderators post on their thread that they will not be pardoned, they probably aren't going to repay that $100. However, if they must pay the $100 before any moderator even posts an opinion, the outcome of the pardon has no impact on whether or not they repay their victims.

 

I don't agree with giving staff owed money.

 

Upper administrators?

 

so from what i read this is just a attempt for bonds holders to try to whore out for more money no?

i see nothing wrong with the current system people already have to pay back the victims of their scam, or atleast attempt to before the pardon is accept.


and as far as the comment about them getting a a view as to how there pardon would go, and base repaying victims if its to their benefit, well that boils down to how staff handle it.

 

Who should hold the money? Just curious. I agree with delta if staff didn't comment on the possibility of a pardon prior to repayment then the person would still feel inclined to refund. The problem lies in when staff comment "never" on a pardon that would make them less much less inclined to repay their debts.

 

Agreed.

 

No support. If the user owes money that was scammed the staff already encourage the user to repay them before they give a decision, even if they are not going to support the unbanning of the user.

 

What about donating the money to charity after 6 months? Seems a better place than donated to the site.

 

I think the current system is fine. Maybe increase awareness in sticky's or something to that effect that the victims must be repaid prior to the pardon for it to be legitimately accepted. If they don't repay their victims, expecting to be pardoned, then they are an idiot and should wait another 6 months.

 

I agree the victim should be repaid before staff even gives a opinion.

 

If the ban was for scamming, all victims must have been paid back, or at least contacted with an attempt at paying them back, before a pardon is considered. If any of the victims become active again, the ban will be reapplied until they are fully repaid.

This is the current ruling on our pardon system, EXCEPT for the fact that no moderators follow this ruling. Every pardon I've seen up to this point if the user has no paid back the victim they make them pay it back to a moderator regardless.


I like r2's proposal and in theory it will weed out the people who dont actually want to pay back but be pardoned.


Support.

 

I think this is really the underlying message. I just felt a 2-step system would be a more simple way to ensure it happens. If this is enforced, then the 2-step system is not necessary.

 

No staff or highly trusted users should be taking repayments on behalf of a banned user. This has been done in the past, and has proven to be problematic and will not continue in the future.

We are pardoning people on the basis that we trust them and believe that they have changed. If we do not think they will repay their debts, they are not to be pardoned, as essentially we do not trust them.

Furthermore, my honest opinion is that the site, nor any of its users, should benefit from somebody scamming, and thus should not be receiving the banned users repayment as a donation. The best course of action is to trust the banned user to repay his victims if they become active, and if they don't, just move on. We are forgiving them for their actions, and that shouldn't be on the condition that we benefit from it.

 

Think about it as a way to "trick" people into giving back what they scammed even if they have no chance at a pardon. In my opinion the scam should be paid back 100% before ANY support or no support is given except in rare cases. You never get to know if you have a chance at a pardon unless you come in with a clean slate. There is no reason that pardons should be handled any other way.

Zuzel, pardons for being hacked =/= pardons for scamming.

 

As far as I knew everyone was on the same page with checking someone had paid back or started paying back everyone who was active.

 

People ALWAYS offer support or no support if someone makes a pardon having not paid back what they owe. It's generally along the lines of "Support if you pay back." or a plain no support before anyone has confirmed that he/she does not owe anything. This influences that person's decision to pay back.

If someone gets that no support they will not pay their debt back. There should be a firm rule telling mods they can't offer feedback until the person making a pardon has paid back their victims with conformation. If they lie about paying them back it should be automatically denied.

 

Yeah exactly what sypherz is saying, there should not be any opinion posted on a pardon until the user pays back the victims. The pardon system should only be available once that is complete (barring a hacking to a trusted user).

The users who are successful in their pardons will likely pay back the victims, the users who are denied are the problem.