Re: Pardon System Changes

this. i have never in sythe seen such a problem this big because of an update. if the admins didn't think it was a good update then it wouldnt be implemented.

complaining.. complaining cry

 

I did not say that at all. Two admin vetoes is a more balanced system, and frankly there is no reason not to do it. What reason can you give me that there is to avoid doing it other than it'd take to much work to have more then one person vote to veto it?

Users, such as my self, participated in activities long before they were on Sythe that would constitute a ban when they are brought up. It doesn't mean they aren't an asset to Sythe. A forum needs users, and by having a way to allow those users to come back in to the community the forum is benefited. Yes, a small number of those users who are pardoned go on to scam again, but if they weren't pardoned they would just ban evade and scam. It's unavoidable on this type of forum, but at least those users who are honest and willing to admit they've done wrong are allowed back, and Sythe gains more active users.

You have to stop and think, how many of the staff wouldn't be here right now because of these rules? I can name a few. I have nothing against them, and I think they're great people, but it just shows how much these new rules could possibly hurt. I might not have been pardoned, which I know some of you would like right now, but I still bring a lot to this site. So really the pros out weigh the cons in the way the system has been run, and using the excuse people are "spoiled" for wanting pardons is ridiculous. It benefits Sythe just as much as the users being pardoned.

 

I understand that, but I'm not asking for sympathy on gods's behalf so much as I'm asking for less ambiguity in conditional support. I mean, it would have been nice if those who gave conditional support (or said they'd consider it) at least clarified their stance after the victim was paid back. It just didn't seem right that the transfer to the usl was delayed for that reason even after firez said it should be in voting

 

So you don't trust 1 admin enough to make the decision that you want a 2nd opinion. Okay. I highly doubt I will ever have a problem getting a 2nd veto on anything I veto as I always have good reasoning behind doing so. A lot of the time I discuss it with an upper staff member first also, unless the veto reason is so obvious then there is no need. So it can happen but its completely pointless.

 

Stop putting words in my mouth. I have not once said I don't trust admin judgement. I just think it's a more fair system if two admins have to vote, and so do others. It takes more then one vote to accept a pardon, so it should take more then one to deny it as well. So far you have not provided one valid reason for why it shouldn't work that way other then "My judgement is always perfect". Give me one good reason why there shouldn't be two votes to veto.

 

this. I don't really see what the big deal is with one admin veto. As seen earlier in this thread

Now you guys were all crying earlier because there was not enough admin activity and now your crying because one admin will veto and no other admins will post a veto even though Govind said he seconds that veto unconditionally? Don't let Finn's past actions change the image of the current admins. Im sure they only veto for a good reason and im sure sometimes not everyone knows the reason as its sometimes for upper staff/admin only in the big cases. I dont see a problem with one admin veto thats why they are Admins If they were not trustworthy then they would/should not be in the position.

 

I think admin vetoes should stay, but if two admins disagree, then it opens to the other approach.

I read the dispute section just to stay informed, and it's full of retards. It's usually pretty one way or the other for pardons. That's my personal reasoning, but only if the above is followed.

Personally I've known admins who like and hate a user, and one shouldn't be able to make a 100% executive decision against another admin, but if it seems to be obvious then they can make the call. The admins are experienced and I trust them to make the obvious choice, and if there's doubt? They'll simply leave it open to moderator input, simple.

 

That's not the point at all. I trust SuF's judgment, and I trust n4n0's judgement, but does that mean they should single handedly make final decisions on a pardon? No, because that is not a balanced system. I have NOT ONCE said I don't trust the judgement of admins, but that doesn't mean the process wouldn't benefit from being more balanced. So again please provide me one good reason as to why we shouldn't do it, because "admins are right no matter what so shut up" is a horrible one.

 

so even after you saw govind say that he would support the veto with no problems you would still like to see him post and say veto?? Dont you think that if the other admin/staff think there was a mistake made with a veto that they would come together and discuss it??? How do you know this has not already happened?? do you have access to the SL/USL?? if any of the other admins disagreed with a veto they could easily reopen the pardon. You seem to have a nack for pushing and pushing and pushing for the dumbest reasons. time to make another farewell thread.

 

Yes I would still like to see govind post it, because there might not always be a case where he supports, and only one admin does. Its not about making mistakes, it's about making sure its the right thing to do. If another admin supports a veto unconditionally then they should post it.

Also making this personal isn't going to solve anything.

 

ok i will give you that my bad for saying about the thread it made me lol a little inside but was not very nice.
So if one admin vetos and closes it and another one does not support the veto why cant the other admin just reopen it and say i dont agree with this veto?? What is the harm in that?

 

Disagreeing and not supporting are two different things. For example an admin might not disagree with the veto, but it doesn't mean they will support it. There should be atleast two admins supporting it for it to go into effect. If an admin agrees with the veto then they can support it, but otherwise they can just leave it be. So if govind supports it no matter what then he should show it by posting. Simple as that.

 

The right thing to do? Keeping users who have earned a ban banned is the right thing to do. The very existence of the pardon system is a stretch, as Annex said. It's not a right, it's a privilege.

 

You have a flawed logic, it shouldn't be "Re-open if I don't agree" It should be if he supports veto and I do, let's just close it.

Saves time, cuts room of corruption or possible partiality and makes user trust admins' judgement more without actually inflicting how things are done(Taken that Govind said he support the recent one-admin vetos).

 

The majority of users who will ever have a chance at a pardon is dwindling down (those that actually deserve it of course)

 

Ok then I expect you'll want to ban all the staff members who have been pardoned and all the other helpful members who have been pardoned promptly, correct? Just because someone did something at one time that got them a ban doesn't mean they still can't be good members of the site. My offense was done when I was in middle school, maybe before sythe was even created, yet I was banned for it. Does this mean I should've remained banned? Hopefully not. So before you go around pinning the pardon system on people like we shouldn't even be here take a look around you and see how much it helps.

 

so if Govind said he supports the veto even without posting it and he trusts the admin who cast the veto then what is the big deal here?? like i said there maybe things that us normal users cant see and are not allowed to see. Have you ever seen any of the admins disagree with a veto?? What would you guys do if they just did away with the whole pardon system and just said well they earned their ban and the deserve it? this is way out of control.

from the high pardon forum

 

Users who confess to past offenses of their own free will are a different story than users who commit offenses and are not "sorry" until after they have been removed from the community. This is why they're offered a special clause.

 

Ok? Those aren't the only cases we're dealing with here. People have been banned and pardoned under many other circumstances then that, and so the same logic still applies.

 

We can't get into specifics without mentioning names, which is not nice.

However, for those pardons from users who I think are useful/wanted presences on this site, n4n0 and Wulfspade1 both confessed without any pressure to do so, (and the self-vouching thing which wasn't confessed to in Wulfspade's pardon is not a perm ban anyway), so given that, I feel no need to revise my statement in the above post.

There are others, like Magic Arrow who would have been granted Restitution (an entirely different system than pardons) anyway.