Disputes, High pardons etc..

[The Ract]

I mean, this may be a stretch or on the do not suggest list, but why not have a dispute forum moderator?

Their main job would to be go over each thread, find out information about them, then either archive ones that are obviously not going to be passed (Bans, TWC's, and pardons), but then forward or flag ones which other moderators could voice their opinion?

Maybe not even specifically a dispute forum mod. Tie it into one of the less active sectionals. (Ie; don't put a market mod to it, as the market is the biggest section, but maybe like Support center mod or something.

Just a suggestion.

 

[BGlave]

I mean, this may be a stretch or on the do not suggest list, but why not have a dispute forum moderator?

Their main job would to be go over each thread, find out information about them, then either archive ones that are obviously not going to be passed (Bans, TWC's, and pardons), but then forward or flag ones which other moderators could voice their opinion?

Maybe not even specifically a dispute forum mod. Tie it into one of the less active sectionals. (Ie; don't put a market mod to it, as the market is the biggest section, but maybe like Support center mod or something.

Just a suggestion.

That's a definite no. Disputes/TWCs/Pardons should be dealt with the entire staff.

The system is flawed in itself due to the numbers staff has. All it takes is 2 or 3 staff members to not support your pardon and you're pretty much done for.

 

[djweasel]

is it possible to have some sort of mod quota(i know some mods have alot to do, but it doesn't take long)? like each mod reply to a dispute/pardon X amount of times per week/month? some mods i've never even seen post in the pardon/dispute section.

First off there is a mod quota, and I don't have time to sit and do disputes but I make quota by a large margin.

Giving it more time wouldn't work. It will just sit there longer with no answers.

What you need to do is change the way archiving pardons works.

Each pardon should have 2-3 votes before it's denied/moved.

Either way, if we give them more time they will just sit. We already give it a week after someone replys.

I mean, this may be a stretch or on the do not suggest list, but why not have a dispute forum moderator?

Their main job would to be go over each thread, find out information about them, then either archive ones that are obviously not going to be passed (Bans, TWC's, and pardons), but then forward or flag ones which other moderators could voice their opinion?

Maybe not even specifically a dispute forum mod. Tie it into one of the less active sectionals. (Ie; don't put a market mod to it, as the market is the biggest section, but maybe like Support center mod or something.

Just a suggestion.

Never gonna see a dispute forum mod, that would just sit and do disputes. Every mod has access to do disputes. Firez used to handle alot. We only have like 10 people trying to pardon right now.

 

[The Ract]

I'm not saying they shouldn't be dealt with entire staff, however, there's a lot of disputes I've seen where it's a waste of the moderators time. If you had a separate mod to weasel out those non-worthy of the staffs time, then have maybe somewhere in the staff forum a priority of some sort. (Like, if it's obvious someone should be unbanned or pardoned, they'll have high priority, if it's someone who's on the brink, may have a lower priority.

If the dispute forum has that much activity, I don't get why having a separate mod to thin it down would hurt.

I think what Syed says is right. They don't want to go thread by thread and dig up information for a useless case that's going to get denied anyways, when they have their own quota to meet within their respective forums. If a moderator's sole purpose is to fill a quota for the dispute forum, wouldn't they be inclined to dig up information?

 

[djweasel]

I'm not saying they shouldn't be dealt with entire staff, however, there's a lot of disputes I've seen where it's a waste of the moderators time. If you had a separate mod to weasel out those non-worthy of the staffs time, then have maybe somewhere in the staff forum a priority of some sort. (Like, if it's obvious someone should be unbanned or pardoned, they'll have high priority, if it's someone who's on the brink, may have a lower priority.

If the dispute forum has that much activity, I don't get why having a separate mod to thin it down would hurt.

I think what Syed says is right. They don't want to go thread by thread and dig up information for a useless case that's going to get denied anyways, when they have their own quota to meet within their respective forums. If a moderator's sole purpose is to fill a quota for the dispute forum, wouldn't they be inclined to dig up information?

Like I said before, there is no chance someone is going to sit there all day.

Pardons have to be approved before they are posted. As well as other parts of the disputes so they are already weeded out.

In all honesty everything I've seen here is that we don't do anything in the disputes and then if 2-3 staff members vote no we deny them.

So you all think we need more staff or that we should make it less than I believe 5 supports to get a vote?

 

[The Ract]

Like I said before, there is no chance someone is going to sit there all day.

Pardons have to be approved before they are posted. As well as other parts of the disputes so they are already weeded out.

In all honesty everything I've seen here is that we don't do anything in the disputes and then if 2-3 staff members vote no we deny them.

So you all think we need more staff or that we should make it less than I believe 5 supports to get a vote?

Fair enough. I don't think there should be a strict number to make it go to a vote though. A well-known member is going to get a lot more attention by staff, which would make it easier for them to get votes. A lesser, but still possibly innocent or worthy person is going to get less attention, and less votes.

As long as there's no 'No support' or 'Vetoes' I believe it should go to a vote.

 

[BGlave]

Like I said before, there is no chance someone is going to sit there all day.

Pardons have to be approved before they are posted. As well as other parts of the disputes so they are already weeded out.

In all honesty everything I've seen here is that we don't do anything in the disputes and then if 2-3 staff members vote no we deny them.

So you all think we need more staff or that we should make it less than I believe 5 supports to get a vote?

I think it should be less than 5 votes. At the moment there isn't enough staff to make it fair for those who do pardon. I've seen pardon's that had 3 supporters and didn't reach the 5 mark in 7 days time. It's discouraging to those who try to come back.

 

[tMoon]

There have been plenty of pardon suggestions, and this has been suggested - and denied - before.

The average user has not any idea how time consuming it is to read through pardons, and furthermore to draw an opinion about the individual based off the pardon. Even if you read the pardon, all-to-often you have to actually do research on the individual.

Furthermore, some staff choose not to be involved in pardons if they don't know really anything about the individual/for a variety of other reasons. For example, when I was staff I only posted on pardons that involved the following:

1. If I actually knew (or knew of) the individual when he was banned, and know his/her actual case.
2. If someone contacted me and asked me to look at a specific pardon.

Tldr; No, staff have enough going on to force them to respond.

Possible solution:

One thing that could be changed would be the time limit, perhaps increase it to two weeks for a pardon to be auto-denied(because quite often pardon's come and go without a single response.)
Or, if someone's pardon simply doesn't get enough support (but not denied) they only have to wait another month to re-apply.

Or the radical thing some users (such as myself) have suggested doing: Only ban people who have scammed etc. from the appropriate forum(s.)

 

[HNCdice]

Dont know why no one has said this.

If you get banned, you have to deal with it. Pardon doesnt get enough views? You must not have tried hard enough. I contacted mods and asked them to look at mine, i had friends pm mods to look. Don't fuck up and expect to be given a pardon without any effort.

no support.

 

[Elena]

I have friends that have been pardoned but for the most part they've done things to get themselves banned in the first place. Granted a few great members have been pardoned but if they wouldn't have done something in the first place to get themselves banned they wouldn't need it. So why should we compensate to the people whom have done things to get themselves banned? Staff not replying is the exact same thing as them saying no. If they wanted the user pardoned they would post support on the page.

 

[Azie]

it's actually not that time consuming to post on a thread and give a yes or no response to the dispute. There barely ever is a good dispute/pardon so it wouldn't take that much time anyway.

 

[Elena]

My point is how is posting no any different then responding? There isn't any ether way it's denied and closed. If staff want to support they will. You're asking for all this change for people whom have gotten themselves banned in the first place. Plenty of people have been pardoned with the system that's in place right now.

 

[Azie]

I think the person should still be told if it's a yes or no rather than just being ignored.

 

[Laptop65]

I'm not about to read this whole thread but if a staff member doesn't post on a pardon it's usually because they don't know the person or want to get involved with the pardon for whatever reasons.

You can't ask ALL staff to post on ALL pardons when most of them won't even know the person who posted the pardon. The problem is people from years ago who pardon are not known by today's staff members. Maybe there's a few staff still on who knew the person which is why some don't get many supports / no supports.

I suppose the saying "unless you're known you won't ever get pardoned" still flies.

 

[Matresa]

We know not all mods/admins will reply. Now how we decided to help this issue, since it was 7 days from when it was made would be denied. Now it's 7 days from the first reply from a mod then they are denied.

I agree not everyone gets dealt with right away, but we're not gonna get more mods just because of this.

It isn't about getting more staff, it's about having the current staff take care of the pardons/disputes/w.e accordingly. If you're a moderator at the site it's your duty to take care of these things; I think it should be a must for mods to constantly check at the disputes and pardons.

 

[-Ryan]

I don't really think disputes are the problem here. As for pardons, I usually won't even post on a pardon if I don't support it, I just don't quite see the point. Also, the example in the OP is a bad example, that guy fails to admit why the first account was banned.

 

[BGlave]

There have been plenty of pardon suggestions, and this has been suggested - and denied - before.

The average user has not any idea how time consuming it is to read through pardons, and furthermore to draw an opinion about the individual based off the pardon. Even if you read the pardon, all-to-often you have to actually do research on the individual.

Furthermore, some staff choose not to be involved in pardons if they don't know really anything about the individual/for a variety of other reasons. For example, when I was staff I only posted on pardons that involved the following:

1. If I actually knew (or knew of) the individual when he was banned, and know his/her actual case.
2. If someone contacted me and asked me to look at a specific pardon.

Tldr; No, staff have enough going on to force them to respond.

Possible solution:

One thing that could be changed would be the time limit, perhaps increase it to two weeks for a pardon to be auto-denied(because quite often pardon's come and go without a single response.)
Or, if someone's pardon simply doesn't get enough support (but not denied) they only have to wait another month to re-apply.

Or the radical thing some users (such as myself) have suggested doing: Only ban people who have scammed etc. from the appropriate forum(s.)

It's not unprecedented. Most staff members wait until someone replies first for some reason so it just becomes a waiting game.

I like your last point though.

 

[Elena]

Does anyone know why the Pardon With TWC was removed?

 

[-Ryan]

Does anyone know why the Pardon With TWC was removed?

It's because pardoning someone means you have full trust in them and believe they have nothing but good intentions. Bringing back someone with a twc means that you don't have full trust in their intentions. So pretty much if you don't trust the person without a twc, you shouldn't be supporting their pardon.

 

[Feelgewd]

I don't really think disputes are the problem here. As for pardons, I usually won't even post on a pardon if I don't support it, I just don't quite see the point. Also, the example in the OP is a bad example, that guy fails to admit why the first account was banned.

it's not a problem, i just find it unfair he didn't get any responce. some people would think it's obviously a no-support
but people would also think that staff members ignored it and perhaps didn't even bother to type 2 seconds 'no support'
the person might think, nobody took him serious and i can understand that.
but how would you feel, if you make a Dispute and absolutely no staff responded to your post, serious or a less serious thread. you would probably think the same.
i might be wrong about what i've said and i can understand it's not easy to work alot, reading threads of couple pages