Pardon system updates

[Maldesto]

Sweet, felt the old way was horrible, if you couldn't get 5 mods to take the time to read, you had no chance. At least now its just when they have time.

 

I don't agree with the 5 supports / denies whichever comes first.

I don't support the "first to 5 supports/no supports" rule since more evidence might come to light and may have changed the outcome of the pardon/changed a staff member's thoughts on the pardon. Other than that, seems pretty solid and making things more public is good.

This ^

 

[Sept]

• Only global moderators and administrators may vote on pardons in this round.

This has always been the case, correct?

 

[Apith]

This has always been the case, correct?

Yeah, sectionals can't even access USL.

 

Good to see some changes roll out. Hoping this will make the pardon process a bit smoother

 

Liking the changes to the system. Glad it's no longer restricted by time, it's easy for a pardon to get overlooked for a few days, and that's no reason to keep someone off the site for 6+ months for.

 

[Yousuckv2]

The only trouble I foresee is pardons sitting around a lot longer than some already have when it gets to be those certain points in the year where staff activity slumps (back to school, final exams, etc.) since a pardon will need between 5 and 9 votes minimum to reach any verdict, if any staff members vote counter-what the others have voted it could be a while before another or multiple others come along and either Support or No Support reaches 5 votes.

 

[Pain]

Wait it was my understanding that its 5 supports or 5 no supports period.


If a staff supports then another no supports, it's still 1-1 right? the no support doesn't make it 0-0(cancels the support?)


Also I don't see a problem with backlog, I'd take backlog over lack of pardon voting and being denied any day tbh.

 

Wait it was my understanding that its 5 supports or 5 no supports period.


If a staff supports then another no supports, it's still 1-1 right? the no support doesn't make it 0-0(cancels the support?)


Also I don't see a problem with backlog, I'd take backlog over lack of pardon voting and being denied any day tbh.

Pretty sure he means when the staff team isn't in agreement, so you have 4 no's and 5 yes's, or visa versa. This would require 9 people to look into the situation and give their opinion which in many cases doesn't happen now.

 

[Pain]

Pretty sure he means when the staff team isn't in agreement, so you have 4 no's and 5 yes's, or visa versa. This would require 9 people to look into the situation and give their opinion which in many cases doesn't happen now.

9 people wouldn't of had to of looked at it if they implemented the +1/-1 system I suggested, then as few as 2-3 could pass it through >.>.

 

9 people wouldn't of had to of looked at it if they implemented the +1/-1 system I suggested, then as few as 2-3 could pass it through >.>.

How would that work, voting no would cancel a yes, and visa versa?

 

[Pain]

How would that work, voting no would cancel a yes, and visa versa?

No.


Sectionals can +1/-1 (support/no support)
Globals can +2/-2(support/no support)
Admins can +3/-3(support/no support) & Veto(2 veto's auto deny)

However, a pardon CANNOT go negative.

Meaning, if video and dunworry both support, the pardon is +3, if shin and entrr no support, the pardon cannot go -1, it goes down to 0.


This would essentially prevent an impossible chance at a pardon for anyone.

If you can get enough staff on your side, even if its 3-10, you still have a chance.


It would essentially make it easier to pass controversial pardons by controversial people which is something I've always supported.

 

[malakadang]

I think some expiration clause should still exist for certainty in the event that a pardon gathers neither 5 supports or no-supports for a long period of time. So say 1 month? If the staff is active then it the clause wouldn't ever take effect, and so its insertion wouldn't be harmful. But if the staff isn't active, then it might save some inconsistency if staff just vote no-support or support to close the pardon at varying times (or just leave the pardon open for an months, which is a bad look).

 

[Yousuckv2]

No.


Sectionals can +1/-1 (support/no support)
Globals can +2/-2(support/no support)
Admins can +3/-3(support/no support) & Veto(2 veto's auto deny)

However, a pardon CANNOT go negative.

Meaning, if video and dunworry both support, the pardon is +3, if shin and entrr no support, the pardon cannot go -1, it goes down to 0.


This would essentially prevent an impossible chance at a pardon for anyone.

If you can get enough staff on your side, even if its 3-10, you still have a chance.


It would essentially make it easier to pass controversial pardons by controversial people which is something I've always supported.

While this is an interesting idea I do not feel as if anyone's vote should count more than another in the lower voting stage or any voting stage for that matter. After a pardon has been through the preliminary stage of voting it reaches USL where lower staff no longer have power, and they pretty decently outnumber Globals+ who have all of the power in the USL. As a result I do not feel as if anyone should have more power than another, with the exception of admins being able to veto.

I think some expiration clause should still exist for certainty in the event that a pardon gathers neither 5 supports or no-supports for a long period of time. So say 1 month? If the staff is active then it the clause wouldn't ever take effect, and so its insertion wouldn't be harmful. But if the staff isn't active, then it might save some inconsistency if staff just vote no-support or support to close the pardon at varying times (or just leave the pardon open for an months, which is a bad look).

This was more or less my train of thought when typing my above post.

 

[Pain]

While this is an interesting idea I do not feel as if anyone's vote should count more than another in the lower voting stage or any voting stage for that matter. After a pardon has been through the preliminary stage of voting it reaches USL where lower staff no longer have power, and they pretty decently outnumber Globals+ who have all of the power in the USL. As a result I do not feel as if anyone should have more power than another, with the exception of admins being able to veto.


This was more or less my train of thought when typing my above post.

You have to remember- globals and admins basically DO HAVE an extra say.


Ironically, you stated why yourself, theres less of them, meaning their vote DOES COUNT MORE IN THE USL than the sectionals does in the first stage.


If 4 sectionals still no support a pardon- it can still pass just like turk's was 4-4.


If 4 globals no support a pardon? there's no chance.


So ironically the system is already based in a +1 +2 +3 system, its just formatted a different way if u think about it.

 

[Yousuckv2]

You have to remember- globals and admins basically DO HAVE an extra say.


Ironically, you stated why yourself, theres less of them, meaning their vote DOES COUNT MORE IN THE USL than the sectionals does in the first stage.


If 4 sectionals still no support a pardon- it can still pass just like turk's was 4-4.


If 4 globals no support a pardon? there's no chance.


So ironically the system is already based in a +1 +2 +3 system, its just formatted a different way if u think about it.

If they have the extra say in the USL however, I do not see why they should have an extra say in the preliminary voting stages which is more or less a "weeding out" process of pardons that are worthy or not. All staff should have the same amount of power in that stage IMO (with the exception of the veto power for admins) so that the staff can more or less be a 'team' in the lower stage and no staff feel as if their vote counts for less which may result in them not feeling as if they should vote at all. When (IF) a pardon reaches USL the globals and admins can commence either tearing it to shreds or allowing the user back into the community.

 

[Pain]

If they have the extra say in the USL however, I do not see why they should have an extra say in the preliminary voting stages which is more or less a "weeding out" process of pardons that are worthy or not. All staff should have the same amount of power in that stage IMO (with the exception of the veto power for admins) so that the staff can more or less be a 'team' in the lower stage and no staff feel as if their vote counts for less which may result in them not feeling as if they should vote at all. When (IF) a pardon reaches USL the globals and admins can commence either tearing it to shreds or allowing the user back into the community.

:shrug: the system was just a basic outline I wrote, it can be rewritten to be made to give staff equal power in the first stage and then +2 or +3 in the usl.

 

The only trouble I foresee is pardons sitting around a lot longer than some already have when it gets to be those certain points in the year where staff activity slumps (back to school, final exams, etc.) since a pardon will need between 5 and 9 votes minimum to reach any verdict, if any staff members vote counter-what the others have voted it could be a while before another or multiple others come along and either Support or No Support reaches 5 votes.

Apparently we're getting mod logs for pardons with xen, so if/when that ever gets released what you're mentioning here won't be a problem (or shouldn't be a problem).

 

[Jeff]

Sounds good

 

[Superfluous]

The only trouble I foresee is pardons sitting around a lot longer than some already have when it gets to be those certain points in the year where staff activity slumps (back to school, final exams, etc.) since a pardon will need between 5 and 9 votes minimum to reach any verdict, if any staff members vote counter-what the others have voted it could be a while before another or multiple others come along and either Support or No Support reaches 5 votes.

Yes, this is a risk, but so, so, SO few pardons fall into this boat that it's one we're willing to deal with when it arises. I think the far greater problem is the huge number of pardons that have been getting denied without even a handful of votes on them; this change fixes this problem.

I think some expiration clause should still exist for certainty in the event that a pardon gathers neither 5 supports or no-supports for a long period of time. So say 1 month? If the staff is active then it the clause wouldn't ever take effect, and so its insertion wouldn't be harmful. But if the staff isn't active, then it might save some inconsistency if staff just vote no-support or support to close the pardon at varying times (or just leave the pardon open for an months, which is a bad look).

Fair point. I'm hoping this won't be too much of an issue, but we can certainly do something like that if the need arises.

Also, Blupig's point is relevant (also also, did you know we get 1 modscore for closing pardons? I didn't till yesterday... hm)

And @ Bus, we talked about weighted systems in the past and decided not to go that route... I personally think they're total overkill, especially since upper staff gets a second vote anyway