Changes to the High Pardon system.

Reasons for proposing change:

• Staff activity is dynamic, and we may be far more active during certain time periods, making it "unfair" for those who post pardons during low activity times.
• As the staff team number changes, the supports does not. This allows for more unfairness during voting, as someone now may have 2-3 more staff to attempt to vote "yes" as compared to before promotions.
• Voting "No" currently has no effect on a pardon.

What I'm suggesting, and what issues will be addressed:

• Run on a percentage based system. Exclude Matthrew, Govind, and Richard, using all other staff to determine. This eliminates lower chances for users who post during low staff periods.
• Remove the 7 day support limit, and instead enforce staff members actually voting on more pardons. Community is every staff member's concern, even market sectionals. This addresses lower staff activity.
• Voting "no" now has an effect. If a certain number of staff vote "no," the percentage will be reached against the user, and it would be a sort of instant veto. This would be extremely rare, as the admins would most likely just veto in this case. s/o Finn.

 

[Tyler]

exclude govind aswell, I've only seen him post on one pardon and that was because it pertained to him

 

Done.

 

I just want more staff to weigh in on more pardons. I don't think we should make it harder than it already is.

 

[uJesternWind]

As long as this means every staff member will take a look and weigh in, this sounds like a good idea. For now, a lot of the pardon requests I've sometimes been seeing only 1-2 staff members even comment on it, often simply with "support" or "no support", the pardon then left there to be forgotten. This will work if one ensures that all staff take a look and comment on all pardons.

 

[Superfluous]

As long as this means every staff member will take a look and weigh in, this sounds like a good idea. For now, a lot of the pardon requests I've sometimes been seeing only 1-2 staff members even comment on it, often simply with "support" or "no support", the pardon then left there to be forgotten. This will work if one ensures that all staff take a look and comment on all pardons.

Not all staff are active at any given time, like blade mentioned. Requiring that everyone post on each pardon doesn't make any sense. Also, afaik, the understanding is that a mod making no comment on a thread means they're abstaining/voting no; that said, I do think negative votes should hurt, so I'm all for the suggestion.

 

[Prince 1337]

I don't care what anyone else's opinion is, I see your valid points. This sounds like a good idea to me for obvious reasons.

1. You've made a valid argument that holds to the fullest.

2. You have suggested changes for the greater good. This change would allow a majority needing to pass which means the judgement of multiple staff will see that the user has had some character change or deserves another chance.

3. Admins already get the Veto option and allowing them to deny is the same.. Just make 2 deny's from an admin automatic no. Hopefully higher staff don't abuse this as they are Admins and should be trusted not to.

 

Support this, probably in some modified form that I don't care to try and consider this minute.

A percentage based system is better. I think its a good point that "no" should matter when considering a pardon, also that staff might be busy or the number of staff available might be different and this helps mitigate that possibility.

 

[Deathsnova]

Interesting ideas. As someone whose asked for pardon 5 times and been successful two times, I have my own opinions on the good and bad points of the system and what improvements could be made. The problem you outlined about staff inactivity and not enough people voting on the pardons is true, some pardons go unnoticed or unvoted on and the person involved feels disappointing because they were denied merely on not receiving enough support because either A) nobody clicked the thread or B) the mods clicked the thread but didn't post on it either way. Posting one way or the other or even abstaining could give peace of mind to the person requesting pardon knowing that even if they were denied, they have enough feedback for trying again in another 6 months.

However, i also believe mods have the problem of not wanting to blindly support cases they have no idea who the person involved was or what they did. Another improvement could be posting that the high pardon has been denied after being moved into the USL, instead of making the person requesting HP waiting 8 days and then assuming they were denied.

With my most recent pardon, after 7 days had gone I assumed I was unsuccessful, then I tried logging in on day 13 and I was unbanned.

 

[malakadang]

Have there been many instances where the present system has denied someone the ability to come back (when they might have deserved to)? Also, that this denial was a result of the lack of activity in the staff ranks, for whatever reason?

 

I'm fine with how things are currently in the public phase considering majority of the things you mention are addressed in the USL phase.

I do agree though that not enough time is spent on viewing pardons, I'm getting into it more since I find it interesting but perhaps it's due to a lack of incentive for doing so based on the modscore system that is in place currently.

 

[Heeatz]

Couldn't agree more with the removal of the time limit. It was ridiculous in the first place. Never gave a chance for all staff to post on pardons.

I do also like the percentage idea you're rolling with, as a 'no' vote should have effect/consequence if you like, as there must be a reason for said staff member to not support a pardon.

As JG stated the lack of incentive, if necessary/easier just add modscore to pardon voting, i'm sure that would bring up activity, if staff don't support ideas in the OP.

 

[Apith]

Have there been many instances where the present system has denied someone the ability to come back (when they might have deserved to)? Also, that this denial was a result of the lack of activity in the staff ranks, for whatever reason?

In the past there have been pardons that seemed like they were overlooked. Some staff's reasons were if they don't post, that means they vote no. I like this suggestion because it shows visibility and doesn't place any doubt in the public's mind. Did X not post because he didn't see it? Or maybe he's busy with other things? Maybe he doesn't want to vote? Maybe he doesn't want to read through a no name's pardon? Or did he mean to vote no?

I'll support this suggestion.

 

[whaatitdo]

Support as well. Some changes like this are needed to make the system fairer, got both sides.

 

[Maldesto]

I'm not sure why you have to receive 60% of vote in the upper level, but not in the lower. I'd say you should have to have even higher in the first stage.

 

I'm not sure why you have to receive 60% of vote in the upper level, but not in the lower. I'd say you should have to have even higher in the first stage.

Requiring a lower percentage in the second stage gives the opportunity for some staff members to change their 'yes' to a 'no', which doesn't really make sense.

 

[video]

I do think that "no support" should have an impact (maybe 5 no supports is an auto denial much like 5 yes supports moves you on to the next stage) and that the time limit should be removed. I don't think every single staff member needs to vote on every pardon though

 

[Superfluous]

I do think that "no support" should have an impact (maybe 5 no supports is an auto denial much like 5 yes supports moves you on to the next stage) and that the time limit should be removed. I don't think every single staff member needs to vote on every pardon though

Seems simple enough and effective enough to me. I just wonder how many people will have -3 and -4 votes

 

[Lorenzo]

I support the ideas of the time limit getting removed and making it so that no support means something. Because eventually you're going to end up with 5 supports or 5 non supports. But just because you don't get them one way or another within 7 days does that mean it should be denied.

 

bump.