Forced Pardon Voting/Closing by Vote Count

[Jiwi]

I realize the pardon system was recently revamped, but I figured I might as well suggest this to the staff and give it a go.

Whether it be for lack of interest, lack of activity, or just not wanting to/having time to, many of the staff obviously don't vote on many of the pardons posted in the dispute section. I just figured it may be useful to implement some type of forced (for lack of a better word) system that allows everyone a fair chance of getting pardoned. Just because the user wasn't very well known during the time of their ban and gets one post on there pardon doesn't, in my opinion, deserve to be closed on the grounds that it has been "two weeks" of the staff's period to view and vote on it.

What I'm proposing is either encouraged staff involvement in pardons (each staff member must post on 2/3 pardons etc) or require a certain number of staff votes in order to close it (ie 10 posts so it's a fair amount of varied opinions). This not only reduces the number of pardons that get forgotten, but it also makes sure everyone gets a somewhat equal amount of voting in the process.

Feel free to leave any feedback here or your opinion on the suggestion.

Thanks


POSSIBLE SOLUTION: Give mod logs for pardons. Simply an idea

 

[justinkiller]

I believe ideas like this have already been posted, and the answer given was that when a mod doesn't respond to a pardon thread, it is basically them saying no support. So there is no need to actually say "No Support", it is implied if you don't respond with a "support".

 

I believe ideas like this have already been posted, and the answer given was that when a mod doesn't respond to a pardon thread, it is basically them saying no support. So there is no need to actually say "No Support", it is implied if you don't respond with a "support".

I think it would be best for them to actually have to physically post saying "No Support" to confirm that they in fact don't support. Otherwise people may feel that they have been denied as people have just not seen the pardon.

I generally feel that there is a lack of hustle with staff members with dealing with disputes and what-not sometimes. I'm not sure about the current state of things, but yes I am referring to when I was banned and moderators had to be prompted to post on my thread.

 

[-Bat]

If they aren't known enough to get mod's attention to post then chances are they weren't a good enough asset to be remembered.

 

[I_DONT_BOT]

Remember admins can veto at any time..

 

[djweasel]

I don't think we need to change it basically I try to post on all pardons but maybe some forget about it. It's not required.

 

[video]

If I see a pardon that I'm just going to post "no support" on and it already has 3 no support votes, I'll move on to something else. I'm sure other mods do the same, if a pardon already has 3 no support votes, it's pretty much dead in the water.

As for forcing people to vote, I'm not entirely against the idea but at the same time I don't think it's necessary. The problem used to be that there would be pardons that simply sat for a week without gathering any votes and then were denied, however I haven't seen that happen in a few months

 

[Dan<3]

I support this idea, for the fair chances.

 

[djweasel]

In all honesty this sounds like since it doesn't get enough activity, your calling staff lazy. I assume most sectionals don't post on them if they know nothing of the ban (since some bans have upper staff discussion). We give a fair chance to garner the votes. Some people don't even have a proper pardon that they write "plz unban me I'm sorry I scammed." Pardons are fine everyone gets the chance to get enough votes, they can add us on msn to ask for our support or not.

Not to mention, pardons use to be upper staff only and I don't think requiring us to post on them is gonna happen, we dont hey paid nor do we get score for posting on a pardon. I also think 2 weeks is plenty of time to talk to us to get our support or not. I post on every open one when I have time.

 

[Emperor Nero]

Not to mention, pardons use to be upper staff only and I don't think requiring us to post on them is gonna happen, we dont hey paid nor do we get score for posting on a pardon. I also think 2 weeks is plenty of time to talk to us to get our support or not. I post on every open one when I have time.

So you're saying people should have to go and beg for support from all of the mods? Also that since it doesn't give you modlogs that it isn't worth your time? Maybe I am a minority here but some staffers here at sythe are always making excuses for this and that. We know you don't get paid, we know it's voluntary but if you aren't taking pride in furthering the community, just keeping staff position for the trust factor and shiny rank, or are too busy to be bothered with posting a couple of sentence or even a single sentence on a pardon then why are you on staff? Clearly your time is better spent elsewhere.

 

[Sypherz]

I suggested this a couple months ago and we came to the consensus that pardons are a privilege and not a right.

 

[malakadang]

Do you think a mod should be required to vote in a pardon when he knows little about the person requesting it?

 

[djweasel]

So you're saying people should have to go and beg for support from all of the mods? Also that since it doesn't give you modlogs that it isn't worth your time? Maybe I am a minority here but some staffers here at sythe are always making excuses for this and that. We know you don't get paid, we know it's voluntary but if you aren't taking pride in furthering the community, just keeping staff position for the trust factor and shiny rank, or are too busy to be bothered with posting a couple of sentence or even a single sentence on a pardon then why are you on staff? Clearly your time is better spent elsewhere.

Oh I am one of the few that actually does take pride in the community. Not to mention I've had people have came to me asking for support. I have no problem with that, I just don't get on msn as much as most people. I don't make excuses I take care of all my stuff as fast as possible.

Oh and if you look at past pardons that have been archived I do actually deal with them.

 

[Jiwi]

Do you think a mod should be required to vote in a pardon when he knows little about the person requesting it?

Based on this principle, what happens when no one knows about the banned user?

It's more or less about, while pardons are a privilege, the definitive answer from the staff as a whole.

 

It's only really necessary if the mod has something particular to say about the user, or was involved in the case. As many admins have said prior to this thread, the pardon system is a privilege and probably shouldn't even exist. If it's just to say "I support" then it's not really required.

 

[Noam]

Give modlogs for pardons - just one or so should make it so that staff look there often enough to meet the quota and they can be trusted to think about their reply some before committing to support or no support

 

[I_DONT_BOT]

If they got modlogs, they'd all be more active there. I'm pretty sure RASC Ban Evader section doesn't give modlogs, so that's probably why some mods aren't super active in there, i've had threads stand for a few hours with a load of mods online.

 

[Noam]

If they got modlogs, they'd all be more active there. I'm pretty sure RASC Ban Evader section doesn't give modlogs, so that's probably why some mods aren't super active in there, i've had threads stand for a few hours with a load of mods online.

Actually it does give modlogs, but much less. I'm actually surprised since it's about as easy as a spam report and it doesn't need perms in a particular section, I recall them being done almost instantly.

 

[n4n0]

If they got modlogs, they'd all be more active there. I'm pretty sure RASC Ban Evader section doesn't give modlogs, so that's probably why some mods aren't super active in there, i've had threads stand for a few hours with a load of mods online.

Sometimes they just get overlooked is all.

 

[FireZ]

Not going to happen.