Pardons/DNT

Just looking at the pardon section it seems half of staff don't know what's going on and by the time the voting process is finished staff don't know what to do because some have been supporting DNT while others have been supporting pardons. I don't think it should be that complicated.

If someone wants to request a pardon, you vote on a pardon yes/no. No "I support DNT" or "i'd be okay with you returning as DNT". You vote yes\no for a full unban and it passes or it doesn't. If it doesn't pass in the first stage leave a post letting them know they can apply for DNT since their pardon has failed. If it passes you can still leave a similar post letting them know if they aren't un-banned in 7 days after the USL, they may do so as well.

Differentiate pardons from DNT requests and get rid of the confusion in the process because I saw on Heads447's pardon among others that after a dozen staff members vote on a pardon, some of them voting no, some of them voting yes, and some of them voting for DNT, they have no idea what to do at the end.

Pardon requests will still be pardon requests, DNT requests will still be DNT requests, they just won't be happening at once and the system is overall cleaner.

Conditional supports are already disallowed and DNT is more or less a conditional support, being denied in a pardon will also not result in you being ineligible for DNT so I don't see what issues could arise.

 

Yeah. The whole thing is a shit show and it needs to be made a lot more clear.

 

I think people should simply have "requesting full pardon" or "requesting DNT". The person requesting should pick what he's pardoning for. I believe both requesting a pardon should be 6 months apart, and so should regular pardons, but they shouldn't be intertwined. As in if they fail a pardon, they can request DNT right after, but both are separate 6 month waits.

 

I'm not sure if they want to put limitations on when someone can apply for DNT but there probably should be one, not really what this thread is about though. First thing's first the two need to be separate.

 

Yeah that was like a side note, I meant the user should be "requesting pardon" or "requesting DNT"

 

Precisely. They should be requesting pardons, and staff should be voting yes\no for a pardon. They should be requesting DNT, and staff should be voting yes\no for a DNT rank. They should not be requesting a pardon and staff members are voting for DNT.

 

My pardon was/is a bit complicated. Halfway through, Shin unbanned me with a DNT. Now that I was unbanned, it was basically a redo on the process and everyone has to vote again.

I do agree it's a bit of a cluster now and although I am apart of this situation, I think it's either you're requesting a pardon or you're requesting a DNT

Do you suggest adding a different section?

 

I'm not entirely sure a different section is required. Pretty simple if someone is requesting a pardon then staff vote as a pardon without taking DNT into account whatsoever. If someone is requesting DNT staff vote on that and not a pardon obviously.

 

strong support.

users should pick between a full pardon and a DNT (essentially a partial pardon). votes should be "yes" or "no" without condition. section should be renamed "request a pardon or DNT status."

not sure how long the wait should be between attempts though. maybe a 6 month wait after your last pardon/DNT attempt before you're eligible for pardon, and a 6 month wait after your last DNT attempt to be eligible for DNT?

 

@FireZ @SellerMan @-Ryan @n4n0 @Shin @video @Dave @Chloe @Tmoe @malakadang @Shall Skill @Meteor @Excelont @Loyal To The Game @Astro @Superman
it's worth looking at this - thoughts?

 

Not entirely sure what the waiting period should be, I think the current 6 months for a pardon is fine so only DNT really needs a decision to be made. This can be decided at a later date however once there's at least a set system in place because right now it's just a mess.

 

My thoughts too. It's one or the other, but preferably pardon > DNT for all users. I'd keep pardon requests each 6 months and DNT requests each 3 months. DNT is something 95% of the people requesting (that have repaid and have stayed clean for at least a while) should get thus I don't think 6 months in between is necessary.

 

We already have a DNT template for requested a DNT: [READ BEFORE REQUESTING A DNT] How to request the Do-Not-Trade rank: DNT Template

I think a lot of us get confused because we don't want people to get discouraged so we offer a DNT in place instead of a no, we want to bring users in, not make their life harder.
I think as a whole, having to wait 6 months to pardon is too long, but that's a completely different topic.

Since we have the above thread in place, all staff should just get a reminder it's either "yes" or "no" not "I'd support a DNT"
I don't see the point of making another sub-sectioin in the dispute forum.

 

I wasn't suggesting another sub section I was just suggesting that staff vote on pardons as full pardons and DNT requests as DNT requests. If someone posts a pardon staff should focus solely on voting yes\no, pretending DNT doesn't exist and not taking it into account. If it passes then it passes, if it's denied staff can tell that person they're eligible (or not eligible depending on what they've done) to post a DNT request and DNT can be handled from there. A no should be a no, not a "yes but only with DNT."

 

I personally am not a fan. I would rather keep the current system since I still think staff should be able to vote no with the condition of a DNT (or other conditions IMO, I support a conditional system). It may be worth changing the sub-forums name to Request a Pardon/DNT though.

Rather then clearly distinguishing them from one another (in the manner you are suggesting), I would rather see a system in which a pardon is supported/not supported, but if it reaches X amount of support for a DNT, then a DNT is applied. From there, the pardon would still continue, but the individual would already be part of the community. So basically, make the process for a conditional pardon aka DNT clearer.

 

There is little to no difference between what you suggested and what I suggested. When someone is requesting a pardon however, staff should focus on whether or not that user deserves to be pardoned, not whether or not they should be allowed back with DNT. Just go through some recent pardons and it's pretty evident the current system where some staff vote for a pardon and others vote for DNT is a nightmare. If someone is getting support on their pardon for DNT then they aren't going to not get support on a separate DNT request, so I fail to see the issue with separating them for clarity sake. Aroxez and Heads447 are only two examples of quite a few pardons which have become far more complicated than they should be because staff are voting for DNT on a full pardon. Vote for it as a normal pardon and if it doesn't pass, they can post a DNT request. Simple.

 

I agree that it would promote clarity if we separate DNT requests and Pardon requests, as opposed to dealing with them on the same thread. It might also be worthwhile to say that if they appear to be requesting both at once (a DNT and a Pardon), then we'll treat their petition as one for a DNT.

I'm indifferent as to the timing between each appeal.

 

Instead of requesting both at once I don't see why they couldn't do a pardon first and if it fails apply for DNT?

 

If they request both simultaneously, if we presume it's a pardon first, and deny it, then ask them to request a DNT, that delays their ability to rejoin the community. If we presume it's a DNT first, and accept it, then ask them to post a Pardon, then that allows them to rejoin the community - although not the market - and would still allow them to pardon in order to rejoin the market.

 

It delays it by what? A few days? If their pardon were to be denied and they weren't granted DNT either they would be gone 6 months so I don't see a tremendous issue with posting another thread requesting DNT after a failed pardon if they decide to do so. The whole issue is that threads are currently being treated as both and it's clearly leading to some confusion and problems.