Pardon Votes

When a staff member/pardon voter has made business with a pardoning member, I do not think that they should be allowed to vote on the case. There is a bias toward the member, which could give an unfair ruling.

For example, lets say you are a staff member who buys/sells to member B for good prices. If member B gets banned, you no longer can buy/sell at a good rate. This might determine the way you vote, its hard to vote the right way when there is a chance of losing money.

I would like to see a fair voting system take place, and that only happens when votes are determined by unbiased voters.

 

[video]

I see what you're saying but I don't think this is an issue. If anything, you're in more of a position to attest to someone's character if you've done business with them before. I think at the least people should disclose any dealings they've had with the user requesting the pardon but they shouldn't be outright forbidden from posting their opinion of support/no support

 

[nodnarbusn]

Support OP.

I'd also like to add that staff who also own shops, skilling services Ect Ect can't weigh in on their competitors disputes, and or pardons.

 

[Cas]

I see what you're saying but I don't think this is an issue. If anything, you're in more of a position to attest to someone's character if you've done business with them before. I think at the least people should disclose any dealings they've had with the user requesting the pardon but they shouldn't be outright forbidden from posting their opinion of support/no support

Exactly my thinking.

I'm in the catagory Giddy and nodnarbusn are refering to, but I'm not posting my opinion if I have benefit in doing so.

A recent example was the Rsgoldmarkt case, I've been abstaining because our business has benefit if he was unbanned.

 

Staff are partially promoted on the basis that they can set aside bias. While it's impossible to be completely objective, this should be a non-issue with current staff.

If it becomes an issue, said staff member should probably just abstain from voting on a pardon.

 

I'd trust the current team to abstain if they'd have a conflict. I've had "personal interest" bans and pardon votes before, but it doesn't sway me
in either direction. If it did, I wouldn't vote. Using previous dealings to help voting isn't bias, it's a gesture of character based on proper experience.

If you see this happening, let higher staff know.

 

[SuF]

They should abstain but I'm not sure if there really should be a rule about it. Perhaps it would be a good idea but hard to enforce. But I stepped aside a lot such as when that piece of shit Nate got pardoned.