Pardons....

[iJava]

After watching the high pardon section for a number of weeks I've noticed the amount that have been denied because of not enough support. Now I'm not talking about when the majority of staff don't support, I'm talking about the common situation of when not enough staff even post for the pardon to get enough support.

Some of the time the mods we denying it anyway but a lot of the time they were supporting it yet only two or three did, here are some examples I found going through ONLY THE FIRST PAGE of the archives :

http://www.sythe.org/dispute-forum-archive/1499840-requesting-pardon.html

http://www.sythe.org/dispute-forum-archive/1500420-my-pardon.html

http://www.sythe.org/dispute-forum-archive/1498391-itzfuze-requesting-high-pardon.html

If you look at those, you will notice that there was no no support posts and another thing you will also notice is that it's the same mods posting on them, this seems to be on most pardons : djweasel, video, Dave and occasionally N4n0, yaroow, FireZ and SuF.


What do I think should be done about it? I thin it should be changed from just time and to 'min number of votes + time' or something like that as a lot of members deserve to comeback but don't get the chance because not enough staff check the pardon section.

 

[MichelleAgain]

I agree.

 

[mage3158]

http://www.sythe.org/dispute-forum-archive/1499840-requesting-pardon.html

This one in particular leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Something needs to change.

 

[iJava]

This one in particular leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Something needs to change.

Yeah, there are several other similar cases.

 

[blazee]

I was told a few times that staff do read majority of the pardons but don't voice their opinions. If a staff member doesn't post on a pardon you can assume you wouldn't/didn't support it. Some staff members however like to post "No support".

 

[iJava]

I was told a few times that staff do read majority of the pardons but don't voice their opinions. If a staff member doesn't post on a pardon you can assume you wouldn't/didn't support it. Some staff members however like to post "No support".

Then there should be a 'users who have viewed this thread' box that vB4 has or the mods should just post. I find it hard to believe that when 2-3 other mods are supporting a pardon the remainder don't.

 

[I_DONT_BOT]

They don't have to write no support. Dave only writes stuff to show his authority . But yeah, if they don't post, and they've viewed, you assume no support/decision made. They can be neutral as well you know.

 

[iJava]

They don't have to write no support. Dave only writes stuff to show his authority . But yeah, if they don't post, and they've viewed, you assume no support/decision made. They can be neutral as well you know.

How would anyone know they've viewed the thread? I strongly feel that what you guys assume is incorrect especially when all the other mods who have posted have support it 100%.

 

[Add My Msn]

I agree with the fact that there should be more mods active there. Even if they don't want to show support for someone, they should post about it.

 

[iJava]

I agree with the fact that there should be more mods active there. Even if they don't want to show support for someone, they should post about it.

Thanks for the support.

 

[I Peter I]

Agree with this. Either not enough staff are checking the section resulting in people having their HP's denied and then having to wait 6 months or they are simply not posting but actively viewing the threads.

Something needs to change anyway.

http://www.sythe.org/dispute-forum-archive/1498391-itzfuze-requesting-high-pardon.html

As you mentioned in OP he has 4 supporting votes and no no support votes. Now was this because not enough mods were viewing and taking an interest in this specific pardon or did they simply not post because they did not support?

It's confusing for the community on threads like that.

 

[iJava]

Agree with this. Either not enough staff are checking the section resulting in people having their HP's denied and then having to wait 6 months or they are simply not posting but actively viewing the threads.

Something needs to change anyway.

http://www.sythe.org/dispute-forum-archive/1498391-itzfuze-requesting-high-pardon.html

As you mentioned in OP he has 4 supporting votes and no no support votes. Now was this because not enough mods were viewing and taking an interest in this specific pardon or did they simply not post because they did not support?

It's confusing for the community on threads like that.

Exactly, 6 months is a long time to wait when really you should've of been pardoned only not enough of the staff posted/looked at your pardon.

 

[Laptop65]

I recall going through the high pardon section almost regularly when I was staff. There were a lot of pardons I read but never posted on because I never knew the person.

Honestly staff are reading them, they only really post on them if they need to to be honest.

I think 7 days is enough, I think a staff member can request a pardon's voting time (at stage 1) can be extended by another week if they want, although that rarely happens.

 

[iJava]

I recall going through the high pardon section almost regularly when I was staff. There were a lot of pardons I read but never posted on because I never knew the person.

Honestly staff are reading them, they only really post on them if they need to to be honest.

I think 7 days is enough, I think a staff member can request a pardon's voting time (at stage 1) can be extended by another week if they want, although that rarely happens.

Then we are going to see member after member lost because not enough staff posted, chances are in 6 months they'll be accepted if they stick around anyway. The current system has flaws and you shouldn't have to know them, that's far too personal.

 

[I_DONT_BOT]

If they need pardoning they've done something wrong, I've never had not enough support/not support in any of mine, I've had 3 pardoned and 1 denied. If you're patient, it's worth it. There should be a viewed where mods names get logged when they view the thread though, I support that bit.

 

[mage3158]

If they need pardoning they've done something wrong

Wut

 

[Noam]

Simple Solution: Modlogs. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Pardons are currently mostly a game of politics, but giving it some modlog reward would make staff with little else to do voice an opinion. It's an effective system and there's no reason not to use it.

 

[Laptop65]

Simple Solution: Modlogs. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Pardons are currently mostly a game of politics, but giving it some modlog reward would make staff with little else to do voice an opinion. It's an effective system and there's no reason not to use it.

They'd probably just start spamming "no support" on just about every single pardon to get some mod score. Maybe if it was worth 1 point or something it could be considered.

 

[Haatmeneer]

I Agree

 

[MohtasaUnique]

Pardons are given when moderators genuinely believe the user has reformed. I don't know about other mods, but I do check every pardon that goes through. If I don't post, it's the same as a negative vote, and I choose not to vote because I'm not convinced, or more often I'm not acquainted with the user or his/her situation. Alternatively, I never take into account support votes from other mods in an attempt to avoid bandwagon voting. I do read why mods deny pardons as they usually have good reason included, but I don't deny unless I have a specific reason myself and I don't approve unless I'm 100% convinced.

That's just my perspective. As far as whether the we should loosen up on those we ignore/deny, it's hard to tell. Pardons are SUPPOSED to be very rare, something given under very special circumstances. But then again, the staff has been working to ease up on our banhappiness, so maybe that includes de-rarifying awarded pardons.