Changes to the High Pardon system.

I agree after reading over current pardon rules and regulation and after looking over some old pardon archives.

 

Making everyone vote means staff might be more likely to blindly follow the crowd in a situation they'd rather abstain from for whatever reason rather than just leave it to others more able to deal with the particular situation.

 

Agree with Roary on this one.

 

Good ideas, I agree the system is not perfect. A biggie for me is the fact that "no support" has no effect. The concept is terribly flawed. Eg, 15 staff members could not support, but still, only 5 supports are needed.

I like the percentage idea. Maybe if we implemented a system where 5 supports must be gained + enough supports to equal the amount of no supports?

Eg,

5 Supports
3 No Support

Therefore, 3 more supports would be needed?

Just a idea.

 

^ I think that makes no-votes op

 

I agree that voting no should have some sort of negative effect in a pardon/dispute.
Voting yes/no should have the same effect granting a +1/-1 score.

 

I'd like to see the time limit increased to 2 weeks.

 

This please.

 

why not just make posting on pardons a staff requirement for mod score, like handling disputes etc? if you don't most on so many pardons per month you get demoted. would make people who are afraid to even voice their opinions on a pardon or just mimic what other mods post, at have to post something. Ultimately as sythe has stated pardons are a privilege and not a right, but so is being a mod, and you should be doing your mod duties, and not just cramming in modscores at the end of the month so you can hold onto your power.



of course how many pardons were posted during that month etc etc plays a factor on your required mod score

 

well if they want to abstain, then should simply state on the thread they wish to abstain, no reason needs to be noted for the public to see, but atleast it shows the community, and the pardonee that it was atleast looked at, and not ignored because a mod was scared to voice their opinion.

 

I don't think anyone's scared, it's more so to do with being uninformed pertaining to pardons unknown to said Mod. No point voting yes or no if you're clueless about the user in question, their history and their pardon.

I do agree with your other point though, that if they lack the knowledge to make an informed decision, they can simply post 'abstaining', or something alike.

 

Rather have a vote from a person who knows the situation than someone who is blindly posting. Be something cool to see changed

 

This and plenty of people know nothing about the situation and would rather not vote. But there should be mod logs up for grabs for just posting so there is actually a reason for staff to want to post.

 

So like a 3 way poll for support, no support and abstain?

 

Sure, I wouldn't mind this either. This way we'd know who took a look at the pardons.

 

We already have this with posting. It won't change anything.

 

I mean a required one, or one that gives some kind of small modscore like 1 modscore for every X voted on or something.

I mean I don't mind it how it is I'm just throwing stuff out there.

 

Abstain is basically a no (because voting no has no effect on the first stage of a pardon). So you're basically saying "So like a 3 way poll for support, no support, and no support (in an inconspicuous way).

Just lengthen the process as Sellerman suggested.

The first stage - 2 weeks
The second stage - 1 week (stays the same)

 

Just do mod score for posting since that is already implemented. I suggested that years ago and it never happened, like most things really.

 

It ensures every staff member has acknowledged the pardon, and the pardoning user can see they have

More than support/no support is posted, which means it would be a bit unfair to hand out modscore just for writing something/asking a question on a pardon.