Re: Pardon System Changes

I also remember Sythe saying this isn't a democracy, so whether fair or not, it's not going to be changed. Being an administrator on this forum takes so much hard work and dedication. If one of the admins feel like this person shouldn't be allowed a pardon, than that should be the end of it! No more further discussion, administrators work too long and hard for them not to have the power to veto someone. Also, like firez said they don't veto any for shits n giggs, they do it because it's fucking deserving lol. I respect every decision from administrators, because it's strictly for the own benefit of the forum. Why would they update the pardon system if they didn't think it was going to be a better process?

 

I totally agree with x339 on this one. I don't really care for the whole Pardon System thing. An appeal section, where members could post appeals freely would be much better off. But like x339 said, it was doing fine the way it was, so why would you want to change? Staff members can only do so much to prevent a user from getting scammed, the rest should really fall on the user himself.

I wanted to add in this too, since it's the feedback section. I've been on Powerbot for some time now, and the moderators there are different. It seems there's so many rules here, it's just turning everybody against each other. Staff take issues way to personally, and I don't think it's helping the community. I'd really like to see staff acting more professional, while still being a part of the community. It'd also be nice if staff would take everything as a case by case basis, instead of automatically categorizing people. Powerbot is definitely not of a better forum than Sythe, but coming from a guy like me who uses both sites, Powerbot definitely deals with disputes, appeals, and spam differently than here. Not in a better way, but I would say they get a lot more positive results. I find myself angered most of the time while reading through Sythe threads, and I don't know why :?. Again, this is just feedback, please don't take it personal .


Here's an example, I don't ever think users should be talked to like this (categorized into one group). Saying that, then immediately locking the thread after, it just sends the wrong message.

http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=1477057


Btw, first post woot, hope to see you guys around

 

You're essentially saying that since admins have put in all of their time into helping the site their judgement are completely flawless and they should never be questioned. Sythe has a lot of business people and has had a past of corrupt staff members including an admin, what they're suggesting is having two admins to veto would eliminate the chance of bias or corruption unless the admin that also vote for some reason falls under the sway of the first veto - which is what they're trying to prevent in the first place: bandwagoning.

tl;dr: Authority should never go unquestioned, unquestioned authority leads to corruption.

 

My stance on the veto thing is that the existence of a pardon system is a privilege, not a right, so if someone's request is disregarded, it is not a big deal seeing as unbanning any user who requests a pardon is much, much more than they deserve.

 

^ Assuming you mean other than wrongly banned users (since I already know your stance on users banned via bullshit) I agree, even though I was just a part of that same category.

I'm very thankful of the system and the second chance I was given, and I will always fight to see it used correctly.

 

My stance on users banned via bullshit is the same as my stance on users unbanned via bullshit. Neither should be happening.

 

You're not for this thread then?
http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=1450774

That's the "bullshit" I was referring to.

EDIT
-without posting again, I agree with the post below and we've chatted it out and come to an agreement.

 

That's exactly what I meant, though:
Restitution undid bullshit bans.
Pardons give out (mostly) bullshit unbans.

That's why I added restitution and am trying to limit the pardon system.

 

I never said they were flawless but for the amount of time they take on their pardons is forever ( feels like it), so it better be damn near a perfect descison. Plus like the staff said earlier, pardons are a privledge anyway. But i completely understand what you mean bro, it can go either way respectively ( but i really think its fine having upper staff deal with that shit)

 

That has nothing to do with the veto thing? If you're going to do it, do it right. Don't just do it half-ass. Admins are not infallible, and we should not take their word on everything without question. This DOES NOT mean admins don't have good judgement, I am not saying that at all, it just means that a system is more fair when checks and balances are in place.

So still, provide me one good reason why we shouldn't do it other than that admins have perfect judgement and should not be questioned.

Edit:

Oh really, then why hasn't this person been auto-denied? http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?p=11546503#post11546503

According to your new rules he is not eligible for a pardon, and the support he has been given by the staff means nothing.

 

Have you ever actually seen a pardon which had huge amount of support which ended up being vetoed?

apart from the time of finn as an admin I've only seen it once and that too was overturned.

Seems more like this thread is just made to bitch, a veto doesn't mean shit, if there's good reason to over turn a veto it will be over turned the only reason an admin vetoes a pardon is when the admin knows the rest of the staff will agree with the veto.

First you said why try to fix something that isn't broken but apart from Finn's time the veto system has never been a problem.

If you really do think admins should have a 2-3 person veto system by the time the admins get to talk to each other most likely the time for the pardon will have elapsed anyways.

 

The premise behind a pardon request is that the user requesting the pardon is asking to be forgiven for offenses they committed to deserve their ban. Why should we make a system for unbanning users who were rightfully banned more fair to said users? They are the ones who are in the wrong, and the staff is in no way obligated to consider letting them back at all.

Once you accept this, I don't know how you can claim that a pardon request should be treated with the "innocent until proven guilty" credo - if one of the leaders of the forum disagrees with letting a user who should be banned back into the community, they are permitted to veto.

 

People are repeating the same things. "Admins have perfect judgement" is not an excuse, and if it takes more then 7 days for two admins to view a pardon, we have a serious problem.

So again, provide me one good reason, because you still haven't said anything other then that admin's have perfect judgement.

 

What are you even saying! You are completely twisting everything I am saying to try and make it look like your logic makes any sense. Please read exactly what I am typing, and consider it exactly as it is stated.

The system is in place to bring back users to the site who were banned, but can still be an asset to the community. Sythe is benefited from pardons just as much as the banned users are. Those users get to come back in to the community, and Sythe gains new active members. Obviously if they were pardoned the staff feels they don't pose a threat, and so far there hasn't been an overwhelming issue with pardoned users scamming, so why are you acting like it is.

I am not saying they should be treated with "innocent until proven guilty", it's pretty damn obvious they are guilty, so I don't know why you are making up words for me. It doesn't take away from the fact that the system would benefit from being as balanced as possible. So please provide me with ONE, just ONE, good reason as to why it shouldn't be balanced. So far all I've heard is admins have perfect judgement, and that they might not even see the veto in over a freaking week.

Also why ignore this:

Oh really, then why hasn't this person been auto-denied? http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?p=11546503#post11546503

According to your new rules he is not eligible for a pardon, and the support he has been given by the staff means nothing.

 

Lol read it properly i said by the time they talk to eqch other, I wouldn't expect them to talk post a veto choice for every pardon in staff lounge, so theoretically it would just be verts nick and firez talking about pardons

"Hey guys tonight we discuss "memebers" pardon he had 18 vader accs, scammed x amount, hacked x accounts." Please make it on msn tonight so we can discuss if i can veto his pardon.

Thanks"

 

I am not "twisting your words". I'm saying that the existence of the pardon system is in itself unfair. There is no way to make it fair that users who deserve to be banned are allowed to get unbanned.

Why should we be trying to help them by making the system for them to be unbanned unfairly have 'checks and balances'?

And thanks for showing me that pardon. Closed per the rules.

 

It simply takes 2 admins to post "Veto" and "I support a Veto". It's not that hard, it doesn't take up a lot of time, and it keeps the system balanced.