[Denied] Bring back public voting on DNT removals

For all pardon requests posted after October 8, 2012:

There no longer exists any "conditional support" for pardons (ie. "support, but with a TwC / DNT / etc."). Staff supporting a pardon request must be fully confident that if the user returns, they are not going to be a problem for the community and truly deserve full reinstatement.

For all pardon requests posted after December 11th, 2016:

Pardons no longer undergo a two-stage system, where initial support or no support is publicly posted. All pardons are now one-stage, meaning a review process will be performed and then copied to the staff lounge for all staff members to vote on.



IDK why public voting and conditional support was removed in the first place. This now just allows biased votes behind the scenes to be cast based off personal feeling about the person not based off facts and/or true evidence. Good people make mistakes. It not just me, i've seen other that have one little blemish that was repaid, yet the make 6 appeals and they all get denied and your unable to see who voted what to get there view. All reports are made public, why can't votes be made public. Not saying make it where anyone can post, but staff can lock and unlock for themselves to post a reply.

 

no support. Staff almost always have more info that isn’t shown to everyone else due to privacy or other reasons. Also seems like you’re a lil mad that staff don’t trust you and still believe your going to scam

 

Your to new to even understand what im asking. they literally just wrote support or no support and why they choose that answer. IDK how how that is more info that isn’t shown to everyone else due to privacy or other reasons. But thanks for your response.

 

lmao no staff dont need to justify themselves to you

 

not asking for staff to "justify to me" what they choose. As i would just like to see public voting return like how you publicly voted on DNT and TWC appeals while you were staff in your early staff days.

 

Conditional support being removed is quite self-explanatory. A pardon is a clean slate, and goes in tandem with the staff team acknowledging that you're no longer a threat to the community. If the staff team don't trust you entirely, and believe a caveat relative to being pardoned is necessary, then the pardon being granted in and of itself is redundant.

Whether votes are public or not, you will still never know what led the staff member to cast said vote. Posting publicly, doesn't remove the room for bias (for arguments sake) - by solely posting a 'no support'/'support', it does not indicate anything other than what those words literally mean.

Lastly, there are many conversations alongside associated reasoning that will take place within the staff lounge, relative to a pardon, that the member pardoning does not need to be privy to.

I'm sure if you reached out to a staff member and asked why your pardon was denied/what you can do to increase your chances next-time round, they'd gladly help.

 

Won't beat a dead horse here but two quick thoughts:
-Pardon voting isn't as wild as people think. Many pardons are nearly unanimous, and overall we balance each other out pretty well; some people are more liberal, others less so, and the results reflect that.
-That said, I wouldn't mind posting the vote totals (e.g. 1 yes, 7 no) for pardons. You can DM staff to ask about their votes on a given pardon, but this info isn't going to be made public anytime soon. As has been mentioned, there is often information that goes into pardons that we don't want to make public, such as us catching a user blatantly and remorselessly lying in their pardon.

 

I would point out that conditional support is likely more biased than staff votes for certain. The public is quick to make assumptions and fails to look at the core issues on things whereas staff will look at these things. Like, when you have someone who has been banned more than 1 time and is pardoning, they likely take a year or longer to come back. Staff will put anything into a pardon to make it fair, but sometimes it just takes time to pardon. I just think that conditional support would be more biased than staff could be so, no support. Will add though, I think staff giving reasonings for their votes, should they be asked would be a decent qol for those who are trying to come back. Although it could be time consuming, I'll ask for @Superfluous opinion on staff feedback upon a failed pardon.

 

The current system works pretty well: a pardon gets denied, the user asks staff members 1-on-1 for the reasoning behind their votes, and staff answer that way.

I don't see a need for this rationale to be posted publicly. I suppose the denied user can post it publicly if they so desire.

 

Ah I didn't know that you could currently ask for staffs' opinions. That clarifies that, thank you.

 

No support. The system is fine as it is now. If a pardon is denied wait the time out and pardon again. Also another idea, don't put yourself in a position where you have to pardon.

 

If anything, I like this idea a lot more than what is proposed here.
No support

Edit: I said this dumb. I like Superfluous's idea, I hate OP idea.

 

No support for this idea.

 

The majority of them won’t disclose their answer however, same goes for mod apps.

I’m obviously also not in favor of this suggestion for reasons mentioned before.

 

No support. I trust the staff's judgement when it comes to if I, or any DNT member, is trustworthy enough and proven enough they don't want to cause any trouble. By seeing publicly who's supporting, people can very easily begin to feel like there's some kind of unfair bias\hate and try and make it like they're being targeted. There's a lot more that goes on behind the scenes.

In a post up there ^, it was mentioned a possibility of a count of X yes and X no being posted. I would like that more opposed to what was suggested.

 

No support, system isn't broken.

 

Usually I'm all for change, but the saying "if it aint broke, then don't fix it" applies well here. I don't want to spend time re-iterating what was said above, but if you'd like to PM a staff member as to what they thought about your pardon (same goes for TWC dispute/mod app, etc), then you're more than welcome to. I for one am not afraid to share my opinion on any of that if someone approaches me about it, but by no means are staff required to tell you what they voted/their reasoning behind it and rightfully so. In short I'm going with no support here , but I do understand where you're coming from.

 

No support - staff are in their position for a reason, they have access to all relevant information to make a decision. Allowing the public to vote on such a thing would do more harm than good in my opinion, depending on who was requesting the pardon people could be bias towards them if it was someone well known and people voting blindly without actually reading anything. Current system works fine, if people don't want a DNT/TWC they shouldn't of put themselves in a position to have it applied to their account.

 

No support, would defeat the purpose of actually staff voting on based evidence they have already.

 

No support, I believe DNT and TWC should stay forever on profiles... making it easier to public voting will make a “Good People makes mistakes” Fiesta...

Leave for Mods make their own decisions to help the market community be healthy.