Re: Pardon System Changes

If I'm not mistaken if there's good reason to support a pardon and heavy opposition against the veto most admins will change their veto, I don't have any examples but I recall FireZ vetoing a pardon once and some sectionals and I think globals were against it and FireZ took away his veto, I don't remember who's pardon but I remember being staff at the time.

Admins don't see themselves as all powerful on this forum and do still listen to reasoning, most of the time its FireZ vetoing pardons and honestly he only does it when a high pardon has reached its expiration or he has good reason to veto it. I've never seen an admin veto a pardon without knowing the story behind the ban.

Also if you're crying over the conditional supports, if a mod has doubts in a person's return they shouldn't support it in the first place, yes mistakes were made where members were given twc's and market bans and other restrictions upon an unban but this is basically proving the member cannot be fully trusted, if the policy is being changed members like syed should have their twc removed although it was a restitution it should still be seen as a pardon.

The other changes apart from time have always been followed by staff it has never been written such as staff members heavily involved in the ban, if they have good reason to not support it most of the time it was posted in the staff lounge and mods would take a look at it for a second opinion on the ban.

One thing I don't agree with is the limit on pardons if I'm reading it right there is only 3 available to a user, I personally think the amount of pardons shouldn't be limited because situations like Sellerman where his pardon was vetoed for over a year he wouldn't have an option to make another pardon, sometimes people are banned for a long time and sometimes it takes time to earn the trust back.

 

It seems a lot of people have a problem with the time limit.

Do you propose I
a) lengthen the time limit
b) make it not an official rule, but a general guideline that if you don't remember a user you should not be voting for them?

 

In my opinion if a person doesn't have knowledge of the reasons leading up to the ban they shouldn't vote for the member, over time this might become a problem as more of the older staff leaves but it doesn't seem to be a big problem at the moment as most of the people who banned members long ago are still around and still have knowledge of the bans.

I think its best to keep it a general guide line but a moderator should know the background of a member they are voting for.

 

Reposting this here for the sake of discussion.

I've been thinking about it, and I think it might also be wise to allow/leave the stipulations for pardons such as TwC, market ban, etc. still in place. The reason I say this is because from what I've seen, if staff deems a user non-trustworthy then he/she wouldn't be let back on the site at all, however in the other end, it also prevents users who are trusted and pardon from coming back scotts-free.

My case specigically, FireZ and Nick mutually agreed, or so it seemed, that my 6 month ban from the middlemanning forum had nothing to do with trust, it was more "a slap on the wrists." It was basically a constant reminder for me that I was not allowed back because I'm special, I was given a chance and I need to prove that I deserve to be here. On that same note, some users like TTB, Syed, etc are/were TWC'd not from them being untrustworthy but because i believe was another slap on the wrists.

Syed for example handles/has access to thousands of dollars worth of GP daily and was even considered for hosting an unofficial IRC. If a user really had to be cautious while trading Syed, he wouldn't have been given the opportunity of running an IRC which would most likely give him access to IPs, login details for IRC, etc. Not to specifically call him out, was just an easy case to explain. Yes he was brought back with the restitution system but I feel if he had pardoned the outcome would have been the same.

My point is, I think stipulations should be allowed because they're not always about trust, sometimes its just too easy to allow a user back on the site without being completely let back as though nothing ever happened, the stipulation reminds them of what they had done earlier. On that same note, I think without these stiupulations, many pardons will be denied but the user could still be someone who would be an asset to the site.

It also allows for people to ease back into the community and slowly gain their name and trust back. I say this relating specifically to a post regarding PlzNate and a market ban. On his most recent pardon, a staff member said if he was pardoned they would like a market ban placed because most users would auto trust someone with 10k+ posts and 300+ vouches, which most of us know is true. A market ban however, gives him time to slowly bring his name back to the site and also in that 6 months time, you'll actually be able to visibly see by his posts/attitude on the site if the person really has changed.

That's just how I feel about it because I most likely would have been denied had it not been for my stipulation, but I feel like I've proved that I have changed only because staff has been able to see this change in me.

PS. Written on my phone so sorry for any typos.

 

Im just going to pop in say im against the one admin veto. Vetoes should also include some reasoning as to why the decision was made. Also putting a time limit on pardons is only going to increase insincere pardon requests due to feeling rushed, its not the applicants fault that pertinent information was deleted or you may not remember them. Change can take time, and just because the case may be harder to handle due to it being an older banned member doesnt mean they should be punished.

 

I brought this to Govind personally (One-Admin Vetoing). And I would like to support it's removal or at least requiring 2 admins to veto.

I would feel safer in a community where power abuse is restricted and where staff looks forward restricting it. We don't want to see cases like Finn.

It's not like it would affect admins with their time, and it would make power abuse (If it ever happens) less likely.

 

Drento requested I posted this on their behalf, as they are currently banned.

 

I am with BSGP. If you look at the justice system in the real world, or at least in the US, then you have stipulations with being brought back into society. A parole board can say that Person X must go to a sober living facility/halfway house to slowly reintroduce them into society or that X is on parole for Y amount of time to continue the punishment. I feel as if TWCs and conditional market bans or specific forum bans are more of a slap on the wrist than a trust issue. A penance if you will, because as you said members have put a lot of time into these cases to get these people banned a lot of the time. Just because someone put a lot of time in doesn't mean that the person asking for the pardon isn't some sort of community asset that could add to the community. These members can continue their additions community wise but still feel the restrictions of their penance.

Just my take.

 

There have been quite a few members which have been pardoned that went on to scam people again.

Just to list a few big ones:

1. Plznate - over $4k
2. Growdie - Possible christmas cracker (I have no doubt that he scamed)
3. Halo3MLG50s - scammed a purple phat
4. Some person had 80 post (I'm being serious) - scammed $300

There's others who have scammed, but I'm not going to list them all.

 

Plznate wasn't really pardoned, the rules were changed and the administration decided that they would "pardon" him by reducing his ban from 3 months to 1 month. He would have been back either way.

Edit: This was also before the collective approach.

 

^^^ Either way the last 3 were done under the collective approach. And plznate would of been unbanned by any approach tbh.

 

Most likely true but there was really no reason to believe he would scam and he did pay everyone back.

 

We need to stop using this "paying back" excuse. If you kill somebody and save another life...you still killed somebody. I don't really support pardoning people who's ban reason was scamming

 

Will edit this with more detail later, but my current opinion consists of:

1.) No single admin vetoes. Despite most of them being correct, personal vendettas and past issues can always subliminally play a part in these vetoes whether or not they're consciously thinking about it

2.). Time on the pardons isn't the issue. There should be some sort of staff requirement to either post on a pardon, research it, or state their abstainment due to lack of knowledge on the ban. The fact is no one enjoys researching a ban, so supplying information in the pardon should be completely required in order to both save staff from having to research detailed info regarding the ban and easier ability to either support or not support the pardon. So yeah, no time limit and more staff participation.

 

So are you trying to say you don't trust the majority of admin vetos? Its not like we veto people for the hell of it.

This sums it all up.

 

posted this in the other thread, but I figure it'll be best addressed here:


I hope something like this does not happen again


http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=1460194

http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=1466111

Several staff posted saying they supported the pardon on the condition that the victim be paid back. They were paid back, and eventually enough support was gathered for the pardon to be sent to voting. However, the thread was not sent to voting even after firez and video posted saying that it should have been sent already, due to the apparent ambiguity of the staff who's support was dependant on the victim being repaid.

Shouldn't it be that if a staff member posts saying they support on the condition that the user pay back those that were scammed, the user automatically receives their support upon paying what is owed?
The example I gave has not bode well with me. It wasn't very fair that godsgeneral's pardon was essentially ignored even after an administrator posted saying it should be sent to voting.

 

Still doesn't excuse him for ban evading. It would have been in voting for 7 - 10 days anyways.

 

It wasn't fair that Sumskills was scammed to begin with. As one who has been scammed out of an account or two, I don't see why GodsGeneral/LilJulian gets any sympathy. Surely, TV, you can relate to Sumskills being scammed?

Also, read some of the moderator comments. Some conditionally supported, but some said they would conditionally consider supporting. After Sumskills was paid back, I'm sure they did think about it, and they were just inclined to say no after weighing the options. Considering they did deliver their promise, I don't see anything unfair or untruthful.

 

why the fuck are your knickers in such a twist because 1 admin can veto a pardon? if you can't trust an administrators judgement then you have no business being here.

 

How does having people who openly admit to being able to follow a very simple set of rules which follow simple moral guidelines benefit sythe as a whole?

People who were pardoned basically say that they fucked up (AKA were too retarded to follow easy rules) and hope that they are liked enough on average to be brought back. As crazy as I was 5 years ago I never scammed or did anything severe enough to warrant a ban. Its completely unfair to someone who progresses through their sythe life legitimately that people who break the obviously stated rules are allowed back into the community plain and simple.

Like all you have to do is not cheat someone out of money, not consistently try to cause problems with others aside from SF and not incessantly bump your thread and you will never be banned. As long as you follow the rules and don't try to push them you can be on this website for an infinite amount of years and you will never be banned. The rules are also not outlandish and misleading either. There are some cases where people legitimately shouldn't have been banned which is what the system is for, complaining that its more difficult to get a pardon is ridiculous because PARDONS SHOULDN'T EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE. When I signed up it was a given that you break certain rules you are sent away from the community forever, but now it seems people are too spoiled with second third and forth chances that having them take away seems like an egregious offense against them personally.