About high pardons @staff

[roundkickkid]

I was looking at a guys pardon today http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?p=12862541#post12862541 and what I don't get is the 7 day support thing, because they make the pardon and they gets a few supports here and there but then they get ye olde " Not enough support try again in 6 months " ? Do people really have to wait 6 months to get another chance because of other staff not bothering to post or not having the time to post because of other things.

I mean the tonne of scam reports and post reports I see the reasoning behind them not having the time to review the pardon but surely that shouldn't mean that the person who is appealing has to wait 6 months until he can have another shot and getting more responses on the pardon... Surely you can bump up the time for this? I think they should have time to stay active until ALL staff have had their say, not just a small minority as the other 75% could have just not read the pardon and if they did have time to read it they could of supported it.

I may be totally wrong and there is a system going on about this like in the staff lounge where you discuss pardons etc. But even then most staff should have their say in what happens to the member before just telling them to wait 6 months and try again.. Because most likely the same will happen the next time.

This is just my 2 cents lol but I do think you guys should all take part in what happens in the pardons I know a lot of you do and I take my hat off to you guys because as I said I can't imagine how much shit you've got to deal with like the endless messages on Skype and Sythe with people personally reporting others, reviewing evidence, reviewing reports you get my drift lol..

But I hope you guys see this and reply to this and tell me if I am wrong as I'd like to know more about it as I'm not criticizing mods or whatever

Take it easy


Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2-1u8xvk54

 

[Wae]

just read the same thread, was kinda upset
I'll offer support, I completely agree

 

[R]

http://www.sythe.org/denied-suggestions/1638067-disputes-high-pardons-etc-3.html

The pardon system is a privilege in itself. If someone doesn't post support, you can assume they don't support it. Staff do check the section regularly enough otherwise nobody would get supported and unbanned.

Denied, thanks though

I wanted to post my opinion on this earlier but didn't get a chance to, so I'm posting now...

To try to sum it up and avoid a tl;dr rant:

We've been advised that the pardon system was/has been/should be designed in a very exclusive way. Guidelines have been outlined in such a way that staff members are discouraged from leaning towards yes just because of what someone has posted in their pardon request. What a lot of you (and I, quite some time ago) seem to think is that if someone scams and returns in a year with a pardon request, their pardon request should be accepted: this is not what the system was designed for (or so it is told). People who scam are permanently banned. People who post malicious links with the intent to hack/RAT/whatever sythe.org users are permanently banned. So if we know your story, and if we (majority of upper staff, really) think that you really deserve to come back and use the website, you'll typically be pardoned.



So with all of that said, we have somewhat reformed to be more lenient with permanent bans. We want to retain our users. Many of you don't know that almost a year ago we began a rule-reform process to gradually become more forgiving and tolerant of our users. For example, we've changed the rules so that users who ban evade temporary bans are not banned permanently, instead they are now banned for a week longer than their temp. Hell, people that ban evaded offenses more than 6 months ago are actually supposed to be, on a case-by-case basis, evaluated and sometimes forgiven for minor offenses. Staff members have also been encouraged to send firm warning PMs to users that engage in borderline-malicious activity (buying phished account logs and that sort of thing) instead of banning them permanently. The gates were actually [unofficially] opened to users who had been banned for minor offenses (this is not restitution). With that in mind, Verts and some others actually unbanned some hundreds or thousands of older users that had committed offenses we no longer ban permanently for. Just keep in mind that clearly outlining and changing these sorts of things is a very long and arduous task for us.

My point is basically that, as a whole, we want to be tolerant of users and theoretically with fewer permanent bans come fewer pardon requests.




Pardon requests are only for bans that are completely legitimate - so if you're submitting a pardon request, you're already supposed to be banned [permanently] from the website.

 

[djweasel]

I will agree but now its 7 days from first mod post. I agree he shoulda been looked at more.

 

[roundkickkid]

Thanks peeps for your input but can you keep this open not closed or whatever so I can hear what others think aswell as we do have a huge community therefore a lot more opinions

Edit aswell: Just so everyone knows I'm not talking just about that one user I'm talking about the pardon system as a whole

One more edit:

If someone doesn't post support, you can assume they don't support it

This is what I mean because the user doesn't know this, from the users perspective they see it as the mods haven't seen my post and I've got to wait another 6 months.. I mean, what's 20 seconds or so out of a mods day going to harm by just letting the user know why they will be denying the pardon?

 

[Ziggily]

My big problem with Pardons is the vast majority of people who try to pardon were banned before I became a staff member. If it comes to cases like that, I generally abstain from voting simply because I do not know the case.

But with that being said, I have never really been a big fan of the pardon system in its entirety.

Like many have said above, they should be looked at more.

Edit: Just to clarify something for the the OP. Generally pardons/disputes are not discussed within the SL unless it goes to voting in the USL. Which is why you see sparatic posts on Pardons as we generally just happen upon them.

 

[roundkickkid]

My big problem with Pardons is the vast majority of people who try to pardon were banned before I became a staff member. If it comes to cases like that, I generally abstain from voting simply because I do not know the case.

But with that being said, I have never really been a big fan of the pardon system in its entirety.

Like many have said above, they should be looked at more.

My big problem with Pardons is the vast majority of people who try to pardon were banned before I became a staff member. If it comes to cases like that, I generally abstain from voting simply because I do not know the case

I see where you are coming from I wouldn't want to get mixed into something that I know nothing about but it is good to see that you are still reviewing the pardons regardless of whether you know about the person involved or not but I guess when a situation like that pops up it's time to get your shovel out and start digging for the info ^_^

 

[Laptop65]

You can't expect staff to support or even consider a pardon when they didn't even know the person. Looking at evidence isn't usually enough either, because they still don't KNOW the person and what they were like at the time.

Let's take a member who got banned in 2009, only staff who were around in 2009 would really know the person and what they were like. A staff member promoted this year or last year isn't gonna know that person at all. Yeah they can look at the scam report or whatever, but they still don't know the person or what they were like.

 

[Moes]

Maybe staff doesn't always know the user but when they post a support 5 days after the pardon has been made then that's giving me a sign of inactivity of mods in that section

 

[Laptop65]

Maybe staff doesn't always know the user but when they post a support 5 days after the pardon has been made then that's giving me a sign of inactivity of mods in that section

What, so staff have to be keeping an eye on the dispute forum 24/7? They do have lives you know. Maybe they had seen the pardon before, but didn't post yet because they were deciding or not to support.

 

[Azie]

What, so staff have to be keeping an eye on the dispute forum 24/7? They do have lives you know. Maybe they had seen the pardon before, but didn't post yet because they were deciding or not to support.

when you think about it only takes like 2-3 minutes? no replies are like the same as a mod saying no but I think the minority of pardons deserves atleast a one word reponse

 

[R]

Most staff see the pardons, hence why some pass. No post = they either don't support or abstain.

 

[Moes]

Most staff see the pardons, hence why some pass. No post = they either don't support or abstain.

could be true but thats also the easiest thing to say. Why would only the pardon section have those weird rules. Just treat the section like any other section.

I know you dont agree with this but this is just my point of view.

 

[R]

I think people are forgetting that these users broke our rules, scammed other people and caused us problems.. why are they being defended so much. We owe them nothing - those who in our eyes deserve to be forgiven, are.

 

[Laptop65]

when you think about it only takes like 2-3 minutes? no replies are like the same as a mod saying no but I think the minority of pardons deserves atleast a one word reponse

So...

No support
No support
No support
No support
No support
No support
Not enough support gained. Try again in 6 months.

All that would do is give free post count out to staff. What would be the point?

 

[BGlave]

Most staff see the pardons, hence why some pass. No post = they either don't support or abstain.

Not enough staff members to even consider abstaining.

 

[Azie]

So...

No support
No support
No support
No support
No support
No support
Not enough support gained. Try again in 6 months.

All that would do is give free post count out to staff. What would be the point?

"no replies are like the same as a mod saying no but I think the minority of pardons deserves atleast a one word response"

and about free post count, that shit is harmless bro. I never said all mods need to post no support because I said this in my last post "no replies are like the same as a mod saying no".

What I'm saying that minority of pardons that actually seem genuine deserve atleast a 1 word reply.

 

[R]

^ "genuine" and "deserving" pardons are usually always accepted?

 

[Azie]

I think some get ignored because moderators don't know the person. The pardon posted above seemed genuine too.

 

[R]

What's genuine about scamming someone and then ban evading numerous times? I don't get that logic