Removal or adaption to pardon system.

I don't think there is any reason to remove it. 4/5 pardons pass now a days and if you pay off your debts so that your pardon will go to voting, you get a DNT which means you're back anyways. I think the new pardon system is as lenient as it's ever been and let's pretty much anyone in.

 

Also you say the pardon system isn't working. That's a general statement: be specific. Why isn't it working?

 

The pardon system is meant to be a platform to show remorse and fix what you did wrong in an effort to rejoin the community. If you add this "+33%" to charity debt over their heads, they will just do exactly what the pardon system tries to prevent, Ban evade.

Obviously i'm not staff but, this "new system" does not:

• Save staff time (A forum based response will always drag on long)
  
• Bring back more members (It actually discourages pardoing)
• Removes a system which is currently failing (The pardon system works fine?)

No system is perfect. At the end of the day people can still get around any barrier you set up, its the average/new users that need to be educated and become more aware. There have been a few suggestions such as TWC rank, vouches removed, or some sort of mark that follows you.

I don't feel that the system is to blame here.

 

How would you know their opinions are biased if they are hidden?
What time is saved exactly? Scamming will remain a constant, which means the amount of pardons will be the same, I don't see how any of this would speed up the process. It seems most of the time its staff waiting on a response from the thread starter.

 

Staff don't dislike someone unless they have a reason to. Usually people who cause trouble, "toxic", or might not be able to be trusted in the market. Anything humans do comes with inherent bias. We trust that the moderation team is capable of using their bias as objectively as they can and make decisions for the safety of the market. For it to affect pardons (which are majority rules AFAIK now) you're insinuating half of the active pardon-voting moderators are voting no on pardons because the user was mean to them or something. There is a lot more that goes into voting.

Additionally your criteria and he staff criteria for what should be passed in general are different. As I said before, 4/5 pardons pass. That's an unprecedented rate. When I was staff, it was only 2/5 that even got 5 yes to go to voting, which about half are denied after that. The rate of passage has been steadily rising for the past couple years.

 

So you're saying the staff should not thoroughly read the report to make their decision? Wouldn't that make them susceptible to a bias?

Using a personal anecdote doesn't really hold much ground. Especially when you present it with "global+ besides Chloe only deal with". Charlotte also said there was a lot of discussion, everyone's human and has normal obligations, things can't necessarily be fixed in a moments notice.

Edit: I would also like to add I have gone through a pardon and it took a few days? Dragon15's Pardon

 

That would have been a better suggestion. And I'm a bit torn:

On one hand it's transparency. I'm mostly for it, even though I don't understand why everyone hates any form of institutions and inherently distrusts those in power, but I digress. On the other hand, there are a host of issues that come with it: mods might not speak their true minds in a public post, nuisance members will bother mods on skype/discord upon seeing a No, etc.

 

I wish I could give you more than one like for this post. Your first point is excellent. Your second point is something I want to touch on. While I do agree with what you said, ABM has a point when he says that it took a month. That's a bit egrigious, considering it really doesn't take more than a week, even that is a bit long. There should be some form of requirements on contributing in discussion threads in the SL: I know when I was staff you'd only see half of the staff (not counting admins since they didn't participate in discussions usually and not counting inactive staff at the time). If you don't actively post on the large majority of discussions there is an issue and you should be punished in some form. If that's too harsh for admins liking, then discussions/voting should be capped to say 3 days a piece. If you're not able to get your opinion posted in a week, you either don't care or you're inactive. In either case, you can't complain with the resolution the staff made. If you want your opinion to matter, you gotta participate, simple. (Metaphorical you, not singling anyone out.)

 

You just said 33% of what they owe should be donated to charity, then followed up with it being 33% added on top of what is currently owed. Either way what's the point of this? You're essentially holding an interest rate on debts, which goes to "charity" (which is another thing I'm failing to understand here) ; I.E. what charity, or do you mean community fund?

How does this save us time? We would still have to thoroughly look into the account(s) of the person that pardoned to find all of their offenses on site (and off-site if applicable) to determine what is owed to whom, etc etc.

Why would more banned members pay a 33% extra fee on top of what they currently owe rather than paying what they actually owe?

I believe everything is being handled in a pretty fast manner. You may bring up your dispute, or one report, but I'm generally speaking.

1) How is the system failing?
2) How would it remove ban evasion? Unless you're suggesting that users history is completely wiped, which will never happen, and understandably so.

Paying extra money doesn't prove anything about someones character (in my opinion). Rich people who used to ban evade / scam can just pay back their debt, become big donators, and once they're cleaned they just go on a scamming spree (as you mentioned).

It's never been like that from my PoV. When staff vote they don't vote based off of bias / personal hatred. You're just making claims by saying that when as @Dunworry mentioned a majority of users who pardon get accepted, and when a pardon is denied there are good reasons behind that as we don't want someone we suspect as a "threat" to rejoin the community (until we see improvement).

 

I would 100% rather wait to support a user I deem a threat, then let them pay extra money for reason to be instantly allowed back in, and most likely scam quit a large amount whenever they could.

That doesn't show good faith if it's being forced upon someone. People who donate to charity don't boast about it because it's a good deed, but I'm not sure how it would have any correlation to Sythe. I don't support that 33% fee nonsense, but if anything I'd rather have it go backed to scammed victims, then a random charity (and that's not to disregard charity's, I'm just saying).

?

Not at all as I mentioned above since you'd be forcing this upon someone.

I'm not being bias. I've been handling everything other than recoveries every single day since I became staff, and so has Champ / Wortel / Gen (the list goes on), and Chloe / Charlotte / Killswitch held that down very well for prior too. We have other staff that also excel in different areas, and Charlotte has been doing recoveries extremely well mainly by herself (credit to Dave for that as well). Also not every staff member is fortunate enough to be on more than others due to IRL obligations, but generally speaking we're fine. Sure there may be some disputes / reports that are open slightly longer than others, but that doesn't mean they're not being looked into. Some cases are more complex than the public perspective can see, I'm just saying.

Not trying to be off-topic on that, but in regards to pardons specifically (since this is what this suggestion is for), then I'd disagree with you.

The system you're proposing doesn't have any solution though? You're just saying give 33% of debt on top of what they owe to charity, and then they have all of their scams / ban evader history from Sythe wiped (which is illogical). It's not showing any improvement in their character, and other aspects what so ever.

 

Forget 33% going to charity, 33% should go to staff and the teams.

IMO I've always thought that scamming pardons should require +25-33% regardless.

I don't think we need to change the pardon system at all, I just think we should make it cost 25-33% ontop of what ur scam debts are.

This amount can go back to scammed victims, the staff & the teams.

To compensate for this the % needed for a pardon to pass could be adjusted down to 60% vs 66.6% which should balance the flow of users able to get a pardon through since slightly less pardons will be made as people don't want to repay 33% extra, but for those that do it would be easier to get ur pardon through after coughing up 33% extra.

Simple solution to help pay some staff & the teams.

 

While I firmly believe the original voting system should stay in place, I can potentially see room for there to be a 25-33% optional donation in good faith. This would only have a possibility rather than a guarantee to influence your pardon in a positive manner, where threats to the community would still be declined however previous scammers who were eager to return could benefit from it.

support