Pardons/DNT

I'm not sure if I've articulated clearly what I'm trying to say. I'm saying that in the event that after we determine that pardons and DNTs should be segregated, IF someone still applies for both simultaneously, THEN we treat their appeal as a DNT one and not a Pardon one.

Absolutely, and I agree that segregating them would be good.

 

If they're segregated I don't see the issue when if someone posts a request for both for it to be voted on as a pardon and if it's not accepted they can post a DNT request or even use the same thread. Under no circumstances however do I feel that staff should be voting on a pardon with any thought or consideration of DNT or vise versa. If a user is pardoning, for the voting process, DNT should not exist. If a user is applying for DNT, for their voting process, pardons do not exist (although this doesn't really matter.)

 

If we assess it as a pardon, there are three possible consequences:

1. It passes;
2. It fails, but would pass a DNT;
   • Disadvantage: Takes an extra week at least for them to re-enter the community.
3. It fails both as a pardon and would fail as a DNT.
   • Disadvantage: Wastes time.

If we assess it as a DNT, there are three possible consequences:

1. It passes, and would also pass a pardon;
   • Disadvantage: Wastes time as they would have passed a pardon.
2. It passes, and they would not pass a pardon;
   • Advantage: Allows them to re-enter the community sooner.
3. It fails both as a DNT and therefore logically would automatically fail as a pardon.
   • Advantage: Saves time, since logically if you fail a DNT, you will fail a pardon; the opposite is not true: many people have failed Pardon's but succeeded in DNT's.

I prefer saving time, as you mentioned those 'few days'. Sometimes pardons take very long, so it can turn out be a fortnight; DNTs don't go to USL. They may not bother with the wait. I just think the proposal of assuming a pardon first, then asking them to post a DNT is inefficient, and would reduce the inflow of members re-entering the community. In any case, this is only relevant if they, in one thread, seem to have applied for both at once, not realizing that we want them to split it up into two threads.

 

From what I have seen of the current system I have trouble believing that if users were allowed to apply for both in one shot that anything would change. If they aren't willing to wait a few days as opposed to 6 months, clearly they didn't want to come back that badly anyways. The website was fully functioning while they were banned and if they want to stay banned because they're too lazy to wait a few days and apply for DNT, they're the only one that suffers. I personally do not feel saving a few days is worth the potential confusion that is clearly present right now.

 

I don't think users should be allowed to apply for both in one shot on the one thread (from a clarity perspective) - I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding my point? Anyway, I've explained what I can above; others should chime in with what they think of the whole system atm.

 

Why are staff voting on DNT anyway? Literally the public thread says admins just can hand them out. Why is this such a hard process? Sythe has specifically said most permanent bans should now be DNTs and I don't see the staff implementing this at all. Literally none of the staff replies on this thread are actually representative of what the current policy is and it's pretty clear that the staff isn't following the current policy.

 

Yea, if someone is entitled to a DNT, an admin can simply hand them out; Sythe himself posted a guideline in the SL as to assessing ones entitlement. I guess we vote on it because some people may disagree with whether a person is entitled to a DNT (based on those guidelines) or is not entitled to a DNT based on those guidelines.

In a sense that promotes transparency, and helps the admins make a final call. Also might reduce admin workload as if they see the sentiment of sectionals/globals, they can base their decision on the lower-staff's views. I guess in practice the 5 supports was just borrowed from the pardon system for no particular reason - I still think it's a good thing however if sectionals/globals post their views on a DNT application, and admins that are allowed to make the final call with or without the assistance of those views.

It seems a lot of the ambiguity surrounding the pardon/dispute process was brought about due to how swiftly the DNT system was attached to the pardon system. It would probably be worthwhile if we revisited the finer points of its implementation to remedy the ambiguity so as to clarify the system for everyone, staff and members alike.

 

This could be a good idea, you could have after 3 months of being banned you can pardon for a DNT and after 3 months of being "good" or following said rules you could attempt to pardon for the DNT to be removed, if you were to get denied again you would then have to wait another 6 months until you could pardon again.

 

I read every pardon and it does seem like a cluster.

I believe people should be initially applying for a full pardon, and if a full pardon fails they should be allowed to apply for a TWC, and if that fails they should be able to apply for a DNT. I know most people might not support this but we should be willing to give some people a second chance.

 

I think that everyone should try to pardon for a full pardon as well. It doesn't make sense for scammers to just try to pardon for a DNT knowing that it's easier to get.

However I think that staff should give two seperate answers for the pardon:
Yes/no for the full pardon
Yes/no for DNT

I don't think they should have to pardon twice and keep people away from the community for any longer than they have to be.

 

- Split section into Request a Pardon and Request a DNT (Pardon)
- Everyone gets to make a Pardon first
- "Your request has been denied for "xxxxxxxxx". Please submit a Request for DNT Pardon here or wait 6 months....."

This way everyone follows the exact same path (less confusion for everyone) and gets a second chance at returning even if their full pardon is denied.

 

A TWC is something different and completely unrelated, so are you sure you're aware how the system works?....

The whole suggestion is that staff shouldn't be voting for both DNT and a pardon on a user's thread and it should be one or the other. If they fail at a pardon they can reapply for DNT. Some users are likely to get DNT but will never be pardoned so they may just choose not to waste their time posting a full pardon. Personally I feel these are people that shouldn't be allowed back anyways but whatever. Voting yes/no for pardons and DNT on the same thread is how it currently works which is what you're suggesting, and that isn't working at all.

Not sure splitting the section is necessary but this is more or less what I was going for. I don't care too much about which one is posted first although logically they should be posting a full pardon first. The current system of someone posting a thread and half the staff voting for a pardon while the other half are voting for DNT and after enough people have voted staff being like 'ok wut now' clearly isn't working.

 

I'm fully aware of how it works and the difference, but we need to be thinking about the big picture and how everything works together.