The Pardon System

The problem isn't how many people you're rejecting, its how the community perceives you rejecting them without looking at them / replying to them.

 

Why not put a poll in each pardon?

 

I recommend asking users to make a poll on their pardon. That way mods can show their support / no support by voting, but that does not replace a discussion in the upper lounge.

 

I really feel that it doesn't matter how many pardons are sent to the upper lounge for discussion and voting. It should be much easier to get the initial support than it is to get the final support and then a pardon. To me, that seems a lot fairer as the upper staff can look more closely at the pardons while the lower staff can just give it a quick glance. That's just my personal opinion on the matter and it does not mean that I believe more people should be pardoned overall.

 

I agree with your logic.

 

I think if it's obvious, the person scammed and there just saying 'Please take me back i promise i won't do it again' should just be shot down right then and there.

But if someone took their time to write a thoughtful pardon, they should get a reply. I'm sure that this pardon (If the person is telling the truth in this and didn't post tons and tons of porn, but a little 'nip slip') http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=1254261 will just get denied because he wasn't an important member. Just because a person isn't known by staff, or an extremely active member, shouldn't determine the outcome of their pardon. If you look at the awarded pardon list, all of which are known / trusted users. There are alot of members here who don't post as much, be active in IRC and such, but still help. I just think there should be a mod dedicated to the disputes section who thoroughly reads every pardon and posts accordingly.

 

We can't let the forum suffer from this. If it doesn't get support in 1 week it won't get anymore support in 3 weeks. Mods read many many more pardons then we ever post on.

Voting is reserved for staff lounge, and the public could vote on the polls as well....

 

Wasn't the path I was originally hoping for, but what's wrong with that idea?

 

I think the idea of a dispute mod is pretty interesting. Someone who has the research skills and all could do a great job in this role.

 

We have a staff for a reason. It our job to make these decisions.

Its called any mod can do/develop this.

 

Yes, there are 'Sectional' Mods who deal with just their section, so why should dispute section be different? It has 4 subsections which 2/4 are pretty frequently used.

I just see it as being a bigger responsibility for all the globals, who have enough work to do, to have to go and separate the disputes into which are actually plausible and the ones that are obviously just a scammer trying to get back. I really do think it's a lot of work and should be divided.

 

Yes but that's saying any mod can do anything, and saying all mods are globals. There are sectionals for a reason, and since the 'dispute section' is a section, i believe a sectional should be assigned.

 

Yeah, we do have staff for a reason. But why would it make more sense for staff to let someone back into the community versus a collective vote by the community. If the community members make the wrong decision, it's ultimately they who will suffer. Of course, I wouldn't be opposed to an admin veto being involved, but I see no reason why pardons wouldn't be voted on by the community.

 

Ban reasons and evidence for starters that you guys cannot see.

 

I thought of this, but aren't these really irrelevant in a pardon? In disputing of bans, I completely agree. However, in a pardon, the pardonee is fessing up for what they did and requesting forgiveness. Of course, staff members will still have to use their special tools to check the pardonee's story out (and an auto-deny if they lie about what they did or conveniently leave bad things out), but other than that I see no reason why community members couldn't accurately assess a pardon.

 

Not sure if I agree with this or not, but for me to consider it, there would have to be a 3+ or 6+ month requirement for voting.

 

The results of a public poll can be way too easily manipulated.

 

I don't really see how they can be. If someone goes around asking people on MSN for votes, they'll most likely get someone who SSs it and sends it to staff (all wannabe mods and longterm members), which would be cause for an auto denial (you'd have to make a rule that you couldnt ask people to vote for or support or even look at your pardon).

This is just an idea, but I think it's worth at least considering.

 

Users could also tamper with the poll by submitting their vote from multiple accounts.

 

Maybe 6 month+ members (idk)
Again, just a possibility that I think you should least discuss.

My original suggestion was that all mods who dont show support for a user should post no support and why. That way at least people know they aren't being ignored.