Pardon System Changes

I would still like to see a requirement of 2 admins to veto.

 

[dafishanator]

I like this. Good job guys

 

[Fineshrine]

Thank you.

 

[freakyhair]

Pretty awful changes really, was much better the way it used to be. After those 12 months are up the user will just vade over and over, since why not? He has nothing to loose. Stupid changes, it didn't need to be changed

 

Glad these have been implemented, nice way to eliminate members who get pardoned just to continue scamming and being a general nuisance. Should 'tidy up' the community.

 

[MrLuckyDraw]

Pretty awful changes really, was much better the way it used to be. After those 12 months are up the user will just vade over and over, since why not? He has nothing to loose. Stupid changes, it didn't need to be changed

What I was thinking, but less extreme. What's wrong with allowing someone into the community with a market ban? Alot of people who request pardons say "I have changed over my 6 month ban," but how can we be sure? If we allow a market ban, we can see how users behave themselves, and actually see if there is a change in character.


Edit:

I would still like to see a requirement of 2 admins to veto.

+1

 

[Jay Zee]

Hmph. I'm glad I requested one when I did, then. These new changes look.... Interesting.

 

[Noam]

I would still like to see a requirement of 2 admins to veto.

Definitely. I'm not going to go find examples but there were several cases where I felt one particular admin was very nearly abusing his veto using it instead of a no support

 

[Syed]

Agreeing with 2 admins to veto.

As for the reforms:

1. Was already in place.
2. Interesting but not a good idea, there will be many exceptions to this that I can foresee.
3. Definitely not a good idea, there are some people that you're not sure of but they seem to have changed, you just want to make sure they're ready to come back, which I believe is the reason behind my TWC.
4. Good, but just seems very open-ended, as if you can pass off laziness as this reason.

All in all, staff barely post on pardons, I doubt that many pardons are moved into voting, and even then they take weeks to get out of voting. This just seems to lighten the load even though it's virtually non-existent.

 

[freakyhair]

Wow. That is probably one of the most arrogant things I've ever seen you say. We should be thankful the system exists? Excuse me? It is nice to have it there, but it benefits both banned users and Sythe.org mutually, so pinning it on people who have been pardoned, such as my self, is just downright rude.

Your entire plan is flawed. No matter how much a person seems to have changed, or how much a staff member wants to think they have changed, there is no way to be 100% sure until they've proven it, which is why things like Market bans and TWC's are the perfect safety net to confirm that. Eliminating those is just like saying "Well I sure hope we're right, YOLO!".

Also with the two admin veto thing, just because there hasn't been any cases yet, doesn't mean there won't be in the future. Having 2 admins veto is just an extra step that will help in some cases. If you support all the vetoes, then go ahead and support them to make it two, no big deal. There is no reason not to implement it unless you just don't want to have to go out of your way to post "I vote to veto this".

And the next time you decide to showcase your amazing PR skills in a post, I suggest you remember that systems such as these benefit the banned user as well as Sythe.org as a whole.

+1.

I never saw anybody complaining about the pardon system before you brought all this up, why do you have to focus on changing things that are already fine instead of focusing on suggestions that would benefit the site much more than a worse pardon system..

Edit: and number 1 isn't exactly a reform, I see on pretty much every pardon "Support if you pay back".

 

[S]

The 12 month rule seems a bit steep. Would just act as a negating factor. If someone was banned for over 2 years, and every 6 months their pardon got denied, and still had the motivation and persistence to persevere forward with another pardon, and finally got unbanned, due to whatever needed to be fixed; I see that as a positive.

Personally speaking, I think their shouldn't be a time-frame.

 

[T V]

Huzzah, yay for sythe.




Also,

 

[Dave]

I've been thinking about it, and I think it might also be wise to allow/leave the stipulations for pardons such as TwC, market ban, etc. still in place. The reason I say this is because from what I've seen, if staff deems a user non-trustworthy then he/she wouldn't be let back on the site at all, however in the other end, it also prevents users who are trusted and pardon from coming back scotts-free.

My case specigically, FireZ and Nick mutually agreed, or so it seemed, that my 6 month ban from the middlemanning forum had nothing to do with trust, it was more "a slap on the wrists." It was basically a constant reminder for me that I was not allowed back because I'm special, I was given a chance and I need to prove that I deserve to be here. On that same note, some users like TTB, Syed, etc are/were TWC'd not from them being untrustworthy but because i believe was another slap on the wrists.

Syed for example handles/has access to thousands of dollars worth of GP daily and was even considered for hosting an unofficial IRC. If a user really had to be cautious while trading Syed, he wouldn't have been given the opportunity of running an IRC which would most likely give him access to IPs, login details for IRC, etc. Not to specifically call him out, was just an easy case to explain.

My point is, I think stipulations should be allowed because they're not always about trust, sometimes its just too easy to allow a user back on the site without being completely let back as though nothing ever happened, the stipulation reminds them of what they had done earlier. On that same note, I think without these stiupulations, many pardons will be denied but the user could still be someone who would be an asset to the site.

It also allows for people to ease back into the community and slowly gain their name and trust back. I say this relating specifically to a post regarding PlzNate and a market ban. On his most recent pardon, a staff member said if he was pardoned they would like a market ban placed because most users would auto trust someone with 10k+ posts and 300+ vouches, which most of us know is true. A market ban however, gives him time to slowly bring his name back to the site and also in that 6 months time, you'll actually be able to visibly see by his posts/attitude on the site if the person really has changed.

That's just how I feel about it because I most likely would have been denied had it not been for my stipulation, but I feel like I've proved that I have changed only because staff has been able to see this change in me.

PS. Written on my phone so sorry for any typos.

 

I don't see why not even having a pardon system is a problem.

I don't know many other forums that allow scammers, phishers, hackers etc. a second chance. Anything is good, I don't see why we're fighting for more.

 

[The Black Tux 2]

I understand the point were you say you support every veto of pardons FireZ has made. So why not make it 2 votes to veto? You would still vote. I would feel safer in a community where power abuse is restricted and where staff looks forward restricting it. We don't want to see cases like Finn.

It's not like it would affect admins with their time, and it would make power abuse (If it ever happens) less likely.

 

[Govind]

Split the argument to a new thread in Feedback.

 

[MKarn]

Good implements,
I'm not that happy on number 4 tho: if the action was already penalized with a ban by a certain staff member, why can that staff member have control of his high pardon instead of every staff member having it.

 

[Broken]

I also think the 12 month time limit is a joke, if anything it should be easier as time goes on, for members to rejoin this community. The main point I can think of is that it gives the person more time to grow up. Syed is the best example I can think of this.

 

[Govind]

I also think the 12 month time limit is a joke, if anything it should be easier as time goes on, for members to rejoin this community. The main point I can think of is that it gives the person more time to grow up. Syed is the best example I can think of this.

Syed was granted Restitution, an entirely different system than Pardons.

 

Split the argument to a new thread in Feedback.

Thank you, it's good to see this negativity posted on another thread.