Changes to the High Pardon system.

[SuF]

More than support/no support is posted, which means it would be a bit unfair to hand out modscore just for writing something/asking a question on a pardon.

Which is why the modscore system is utter shit and always has been utter shit. Mods will just vote in all the polls and not actually read the pardons or they will just post and not actually read the pardons. Both ways will be abused so why not let people who actually engage in the pardon get more mod score than the ones that just click a button?

 

bump.

 

[Flamedog]

I support this suggestion; I didnt like it at all when I had to contact a lot of admins through skype to even look at my dispute before 'time ran out'.

though I dont really like the idea of anything that has 'veto' in it . Veto'ing some appeal shouldnt be necessary because I think its unlikely that you wouldve been the only one voting against the appeal.
I'd agree more with 2 'no'-votes than 1 'no'-veto.

 

[Chaseolio]

Support. I actually had to pardon ways back, and it was a long and annoying process, and it seemed as though only a small number of mods even looked at the thread. Gl

 

[SuF]

But fucking really. 13000 posts so I'll do a half decent post.

1) The no conditional clause is still dumb.
2) More pardons making it to the staff lounge is better, as long as its not too many

Up the limit to 2 weeks. That isn't going to do anything other than maybe make a few extras make it to the staff lounge and make some shitty ones hang around longer.

Don't start the count for two weeks until someone has acknowledged that it exists (aka post on it). They don't have to even vote. Just want to make sure ever pardon gets looked at by someone.

Give globals and admins more power. Global's votes are worth two. Admin's are worth three. If two admins support it, they will likely pass the upper lounge poll. If three globals support it, it is rather likely that it will pass the poll as well.

Only veto pardons in the staff lounge. Other staff are going to be more likely to fight back against an unfair veto there and it will cause less outlash because you can just say it didn't pass.

Please lord give some mod score for pardons.

 

lol bump

 

Which is why the modscore system is utter shit and always has been utter shit. Mods will just vote in all the polls and not actually read the pardons or they will just post and not actually read the pardons. Both ways will be abused so why not let people who actually engage in the pardon get more mod score than the ones that just click a button?

S'ppose

 

[SuF]

S'ppose

I was certainly too harsh. The mod score system really did accomplish one of its major goals. There is no longer times where two mods do 50 pages of spam reports each in a day to clear out most of the spam report log. There is no longer a dozen or two pages of scam reports sitting around. Globals actually ban the people that sectionals have requested be banned.

But it also does all the bad things I always point out.

 

I like the proposed system, in your percentage based idea are you saying every yes and every no counts towards the end goal percentage that would decide the vote? Also like the no being counted, but as I see it once a couple people say no the common answer for the rest is the same to go with the crowd.
Collective ignorance doesn't mean wisdom.
So yea, I'd say as long as a certain percentage is reached after x amount of votes then the fate is decided, while having yes and no votes change the overall percentage accordingly. Such as 9 vote yes, 3 vote no, end result 75% in favor and since at least x people voted that's that. and it would stay open till at least x number of people voted which would be checked on like every 24 hours or so.

I'm just spit balling here but that's how I'm understanding how part of it would go? or at least something similar.

 

Globals actually ban the people that sectionals have requested be banned.

Not lately, honestly.

It's really hard to balance the pardon system. Can't really give modscore - everyone will vote bullshit. Can't really NOT give modscore - nobody will vote.

 

[SuF]

Not lately, honestly.

It's really hard to balance the pardon system. Can't really give modscore - everyone will vote bullshit. Can't really NOT give modscore - nobody will vote.

Solution: Get rid of mod score.

 

[S]

It's really hard to balance the pardon system. Can't really give modscore - everyone will vote bullshit. Can't really NOT give modscore - nobody will vote.

This isn't true. I believe more so, those that are active and care, vote, those that don't, don't. That's it, really.

 

Ive enquired about posts on pardons giving modscore

After promoting more people we seem to be getting the balance right, just need to incentivise the pardon process

 

[SuF]

This isn't true. I believe more so, those that are active and care, vote, those that don't, don't. That's it, really.

Experience has shown that the majority of staff only care about getting higher mod logs.

 

[Thalji]

This is interesting, and I'd assume staff should be as active in the unbanning review process as they are in the banning review process. Ideally, you'd want all staff to each weigh in their opinion on certain matters, especially the unbanning of a user and giving that user access back into the community. But sometimes that simply can't be done. I think your democracy approach is an improvement upon the current one, which doesn't necessarily force any staff members at all to weigh in their opinion on the matter. I wouldn't say reviewing a couple users per day would be incredibly difficult for any truly active and dedicated staff member. Anyone who says they cannot accommodate for such a matter clearly either doesn't care about the process put in place (i.e. pardoning system) or isn't allocating as much time necessary to efficiently moderate Sythe.

 

Percentages: Are you suggesting say 50% to move on to the next stage? Say there are 14 mods, including upper staff. You'd need then 7 yes votes to move your pardon onto the next stage? I feel this is a good idea to play around which; however, it can quickly become complicated if staff sees a few changes in a short period of time.

Time limit: I feel 7 days is plenty of time for staff to review the pardons and vote on them accordingly. Based on SuF's post in the 3rd page, I could potentially see it being raised to 2 weeks; however, I don't feel pardons should become too easy. If someone is banned for scamming or whatnot, they shouldn't be easily allowed back into the community. If they truly have changed and truly want back in, they will make the effort to do so.

Voting no: Here is the only way I'd support this: if with the amount of staff that have voted no, there is no way that the user can garnish enough supports from remaining staff. Say we change it to 5 yes to move on, 5 no to veto. What if the pardon sits at 4 yes and 4 no, and the next staff member votes no. That would veto it; however, what if the next staff member would have voted yes?

 

[Pain]

I'd support first stage voting has to clear 50%.

2nd Stage has to clear 60%(USL).


I think 5 ironclad supports on a pardon is to many, I think even if 4 staff vote on a pardon and its 2-2, it deserves a chance in the usl.


All for eliminating the 7 day limit.