Pardon system updates feedback

Please post feedback and questions regarding the updates to the pardon system here.

 

Delete, misread the topic.

 

Your post isn't on topic, but I'll respond throughout in a spoiler.

Spoiler: Long post

 

As of today's updates, the following system explains how pardon voting works:
1.User posts a pardon.
2.Staff members clarify any outstanding questions regarding the pardon.
3.The first round of voting occurs.◦All staff members may vote, and all votes must be posted publicly.
◦The pardon remains open until it collects 5 "support" votes or 5 "no support" votes, whichever occurs first.
◦Pardons that collect 5 "support" votes first move on to the second round of voting.
◦Pardons that collect 5 "no support" votes first are denied for six months.

4.The second round of voting occurs.◦Only global moderators and administrators may vote on pardons in this round.
◦The pardon remains open for 7 days, and pardons are accepted if they collect 60% or more of the upper staff vote.
◦Pardons that do not collect 60% or more of the vote are denied for six months.
◦Upper staff pardon decisions are to be posted publicly.


Note that pardons denied in the first round of voting in last 6 months (from September 19, 2015 onwards) that did not collect 5 "no support" votes may be reposted, effective immediately.
__________________

I like the requirement to get 5 no supports OR 5 supports instead of denying it based on lack of support.

Quick question: By saying all votes will be required to be posted publicly, are u still allowing staff to keep posts hidden on pardons that contain information or will these now be made public to?

 

Only votes are required to be public. For what it's worth, ~99% of votes were public before this update.

 

personally really happy with how well this has been working so far. curious to hear if others dis/agree

 

I have not really seen much of these changes. It might be just me, but I haven't seen a single USL vote on a pardon that got through the first stage of voting. Look at Wolfrunescape's pardon, it's over 7 days and there is no verdict from USL yet.

 

http://www.sythe.org/request-pardon/1945389-pardon-decisions-thread.html

that's mostly on us to update the thread as we go. ill do that now. also note that something's holding up wolf's pardon that we need an admin to look into so that's a special case

 

Ah didn't know that existed. Thanks! Would be cool if you didn't only include the outcome but also WHY.

 

I agree to the adding of "why". Would make the decisions made by the upper staff appear transparent and hopefully publicizing it would help eliminate bias. It's ultimately up to you guys to deem whether or not that's a smart idea though.

 

I'm a fan of this, I don't like seeing "denied" without a reason as to why. Sometimes it's obvious, but often times it isn't. Would this be a possibility?

 

Sometimes, it's best to leave out our reasoning in pardons. It just makes it that much easier to call people on their BS, and how and why we know they're lying. Aside from that, they can contact a global on skype. Posting results is ideal, but reasoning doesn't always need to be publically available to everyone.

 

Not going to happen

 

As a member who has had first hand experience with the pardon process, I find the current system to be sufficient. People arguing that the six month waiting period following an unsuccessful pardon is wrong need to remember that the pardon platform is not designed to be an easy out for users with questionable history. Generally speaking, people who are pardoning bans have exhibited poor judgement whether it be on Sythe or on a different forum. No one is entitled to a pardon or an unban and the pardon platform is really a privilege that any banned members should be grateful for. With that being said, giving a reason for supporting or denying a pardon is simply unnecessary.

 

i mean, it's on the announcement... that's pretty visible, no?

the reason is that the pardon didn't get enough votes supporting it...

 

I used to be a supporter of staff being required to give a reason as to why they don't support a pardon, but the act is pretty disingenuous, especially when you give a standard reason (ex: Don't trust you), and it usually turns into a back and forth argument over opinions, which in turn discourages participation. It shouldn't be mandatory, it should be encouraged.

From here on out, we shouldn't make pardons more easier to pass. Everything is fine as is.

 

I believe the new pardon system is much more fair, good job. The time limit didn't make much sense to me since staff could be busy and not vote within 5 days..

Not sure if this fits in the thread but this thread needs to be updated:
http://www.sythe.org/request-pardon...es-avoid-thread-being-locked-auto-denied.html, it outlines the old pardon rules not the new ones.