Pardons....

Just because a moderator doesn't know enough about the user or situation, doesn't mean the case warrants a no support. It's fine how it is, if nobody posts then take it as nobody supports the case enough for a vote.

If you don't know the person or understand fully what's happened, how can you say no support? That would make the user look worse than they deserve.

 

[rue]

This is meant to go without saying, but I'll say it to conclude on what I've gathered thus far. If you aren't an active member (or contributor) to Sythe, then chances are your pardon will be denied. The reason it will be denied because the majority of the staff aren't aware of who you are as a member. To be completely honest, I wouldn't post two words if I didn't witness or wasn't well-informed at least about the member pardoning. In my eyes that's wisdom coming from the staffs part. Perhaps one staff member should elaborate what he knows first-hand, and post it so other staff members can at least have a base to comment on.

 

[MohtasaUnique]

That would work if not for the nature of pardons. Most of the offenses are one or more years old, and people were often banned by staff that aren't around anymore. It's usually not possible to get the sort of details you're talking about

 

[I_DONT_BOT]

Wut

You bastard . I was typing on my phone and didn't realise I forgot to type 'they know' before they've :/

 

I would have to agree with this. If I could I would support some pardons because I know the person, etc.

 

[Corey]

Honestly, I have yet to see a pardon get denied when someone was truly deserving of one.

The reason staff members don't post is usually just because they don't think the user is worthy of a pardon, and trust me, if someone is worthy, they will get through.

The staff is constantly in communication with one another, and I've link and been linked pardons in the past which certain staff members feel deserves more attention.

I'm not saying this is a bad suggestion, I'm just saying I don't think it will change anything.

 

[djweasel]

You get Modscore to close the thread. I post on then regularly based on if I think they deserve it. I think the time is fine and its all about why more mods don't check it.

Honestly it was global and admins who could show support now it's open to all mods it should get 5 supports easy. Now you can't give every mod mod score for posting but maybe keep track in a table and give mods a point bonus for being active since currently it's who closes it.

I'm not hurting for score so this isn't for my best interest it's for other staff. Just my opinion.

 

[iJava]

You all seem to be saying the same thing, however I'm finding it extremely hard to believe that you don't support it when 2-3 others mods already have without a problem. You shouldn't need to know about the case personally, if you read the pardon then they normally explain it all.

How hard is it to make one post?

 

[Punjabi3]

You all seem to be saying the same thing, however I'm finding it extremely hard to believe that you don't support it when 2-3 others mods already have without a problem. You shouldn't need to know about the case personally, if you read the pardon then they normally explain it all.

How hard is it to make one post?

I've not supported pardons where majority of the staff agreed to it and then I posted my reasoning and the whole pardon got denied.

I said in another thread only globals should be approving pardons in my opinion and before approving should be posting the ban reason found under their name so people don't get misled with pardons without fully knowing the reasoning, mainly sectionals since they can't see the ban reasons. If people are worried about sensitive material it should be invisible to all members except sectional+. If sectionals follow only what the person wrote on the pardon they would support it because they have little knowledge of the reason until a global posts.

 

I've not supported pardons where majority of the staff agreed to it and then I posted my reasoning and the whole pardon got denied.

I said in another thread only globals should be approving pardons in my opinion and before approving should be posting the ban reason found under their name so people don't get misled with pardons without fully knowing the reasoning, mainly sectionals since they can't see the ban reasons. If people are worried about sensitive material it should be invisible to all members except sectional+. If sectionals follow only what the person wrote on the pardon they would support it because they have little knowledge of the reason until a global posts.

Well when you put it like that it sounds a bit silly that sectionals can't see the ban reason and are restricted in their decision making at the start. It's especially silly that then a global will have to post the ban reason somewhere, why not just give sectionals access to the ban reason also?

 

[MohtasaUnique]

You all seem to be saying the same thing, however I'm finding it extremely hard to believe that you don't support it when 2-3 others mods already have without a problem. You shouldn't need to know about the case personally, if you read the pardon then they normally explain it all.

How hard is it to make one post?

You're assuming:
1) the 2-3 mods who have already supported it are 100% right
2) carefully reading someone "heartfelt plea" gives us infallible and completely accurate information on their situation
3) supporting or refuting a pardon should be a simple "I support/refute" post

All three are very wrong, all things we tend to avoid when posting on pardons. Bias, bandwagoning, being gullible, and sparing little thought.

 

[iJava]

You're assuming:
1) the 2-3 mods who have already supported it are 100% right
2) carefully reading someone "heartfelt plea" gives us infallible and completely accurate information on their situation
3) supporting or refuting a pardon should be a simple "I support/refute" post

All three are very wrong, all things we tend to avoid when posting on pardons. Bias, bandwagoning, being gullible, and sparing little thought.

1) It's the same mods posting so they have a lot more experience.
2) All the information is on the forums, they just have to quickly search for it.
3) Not that simple but if you don't support it then just post that, 'No support' has been used multiple times with no problems.

 

[SuF]

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.

I thought of this before I read these posts. I've also already discussed it with Govind and it is possible but a pain. There are also a lot of issues that arise from giving modlogs for posts and I don't know if we can easily deal with those issues.

--------------------

On the suggestion at hand, I'd be down for 5 votes (support, no support, abstain) and a week before it is denied. But even that isn't perfect.

 

[iJava]

I thought of this before I read these posts. I've also already discussed it with Govind and it is possible but a pain. There are also a lot of issues that arise from giving modlogs for posts and I don't know if we can easily deal with those issues.

--------------------

On the suggestion at hand, I'd be down for 5 votes (support, no support, abstain) and a week before it is denied. But even that isn't perfect.

Yeah, just to get 5 responses at least would be nice.

 

[djweasel]

Yeah, just to get 5 responses at least would be nice.

We already require 5 supports. But the 5 responses would be nice, but it's also up to the person requesting pardon to try get support by getting us to notice. Via adding us on msn.

 

[iJava]

We already require 5 supports. But the 5 responses would be nice, but it's also up to the person requesting pardon to try get support by getting us to notice. Via adding us on msn.

You don't want your MSN cluttered up with people about pardons do you? Half of staff don't even use/have a public msn.

 

[Arto]

A lot of the pardon's I've viewd definitely don't deserve the pardon.
I have no idea how these things work so I can't really comment further.

 

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.

This.

I lurked the section everyday during my short time as a moderator. I just didn't post on any that I didn't know much about and/or didn't support. If you make a pardon and don't post enough details (and prove said details) on why you were banned, then you automatically shouldn't have support. No one wants to go digging through archives to find everything on you (although some mods do a fantastic job at it - Corey and Video to name two).

 

Talking with the user should be up to the staff, but I think before posting "no support" talking with the user should be highly encouraged.

 

[djweasel]

You don't want your MSN cluttered up with people about pardons do you? Half of staff don't even use/have a public msn.

I have had quite a few people add ms on msn to look at their pardon.
So I don't see why we not.