Removal of the ability to VETO a pardon

This suggestion is to support or not support the complete removal of the VETO option within the pardon system.

As it currently stands, you can gain the appropriate support for a second vote and have admins who don't like you VETO your pardon even if they believe you shouldn't be banned in the first place. This can also be true for the first portion of the pardon process.

I see no pros for this installment within the pardon process and have noticed many cons.

-Pros: None, other than making sure people whom certain people don't like will never be able to trade again. (even if they've never scammed in some cases)

-Cons: It puts too much power into the hands of one single individual, after all the DNT rank is meant to bring members back who we think either haven't done anything that's banable, or to bring back the users who we think have changed, or are capable of change.

Example - Say someone is trying to make things right about the things they've done in the past; Admins who don't like them come along and VETO their pardon while the majority of the staff are supportive of this user. The user in question is in turn more likely to either not want to return, or be more liable to scam other users of the site.

 

Support. Have never seen the need for this, and it doesn't get used very frequently anyway.

 

I made this suggestion ages ago and proposed a rewrite to the pardon system, I rewrote the entire system myself, nothing ever came of it.

I support.

 

I like the idea of admins being able to veto a shitty popular member's pardon, although I don't think that has ever been done.

 

It has been done, and do you support or not support this motion?

 

It's kind of a checks & balances thing. A member who is well-liked by the staff but is a shitty person who is consistently breaking rules may receive enough support for a pardon, but a non-buttbuddy admin can come along and put an end to the nonsense. I think the ability to veto should remain in place, as long as it's not abused (vetoing just because of personal reasons)

 

For who? I don't recall any but I don't pay attention all that much. Not sure if I like not letting shitty people back more and risking not letting good people back or not.

 

1 veto doesn't count towards anything. 2 vetos need to be present for said veto to take effect.

 

I'm not a fan of the current veto system and I think if there is a veto system, then it should rely on more than 2 admins. Now, I don't really think there's a problem with the veto system being abused, but I would be fine with either a removal of the veto system entirely or the incorporation of a veto system that required a majority of admins.

So yeah, I somewhat support this, but I do not really think it is a problem and would be fine if it remained the same.

 

It's a bit silly seeing just two veto votes shoot down a pardon when we have 7 administrators. I was a fan of the ability to veto when we had ~3-5 admins, but with these numbers the system just doesn't make any sense.

 

Support. I feel the only people who should be allowed to really VETO a pardon should be Sythe and probably Matthew.

The past few of my pardons get shot down and veto'd pretty quick.

 

In a perfect world, a veto wouldn't even be needed. Say a veto is needed, is there a way to overturn said veto? I don't check ban disputes so I'm not sure if anybody has been vetoed recently.

Staff members let be plenty of people who are high risks to scam, multiple times, for whatever reason. In the end, no one really knows people's ACTUAL character and whether or not they've changed or if they're putting on an act. I've seen people scam 2.1k or so, but still care enough to come back and fill up the forum with some quality threads.

I support removing the veto ability, but I also don't really care regardless as I don't see it as a major issue. As long as scammers are forced to ACTUALLY repay / donate an equivalent amount or whatever so that their net scam profit is 0.

 

We're at 5 though. You shouldn't be counting Matthew or Richard.

 

So you're saying that @Sythe doesn't count?

 

For the record, I just want to say I don't know of any Admin in the past X year(s) who has vetoed a pardon on the basis of whether they like them or not.

 

I've heard of this happening in USL in the past. I'm all for removing the admin's ability to veto a pardon. I'm not too worried about it with the current staff team but I know it has been an issue previously.

 

should probably consider your sources and take with a grain of salt

 

So do you support, or not support?

 

A lot of the time (not saying 100%), but a lot of the time (from when he was an administrator), when FireZ vetoed a pardon he had a good reason as to why the member shouldn't come back.

 

Considering my sources were upper staff, no salt needed.