Removal or adaption to pardon system.

[Sun]

Repaying more than was originally scammed doesn't speak anything of character, but rather their wallet. Requiring people to repay more than is due to have an immediate unban is not a safe way to allow members back into the community. Sure, faster, but not safer, which is the point of processing pardons. We are evaluating these people who have done wrong. This wouldn't solve the evasion issue either.

We don't have a bias issue on pardons. You may not be able to see how or what we vote, but across the multiple staff teams I've been a part of since last December, they have always been solid in terms of voting fairly. Time to time I see staff abstaining from voting (they post to let others know) because of conflicts of interest or personal dislikes, or fear someone may assume their dislike for a certain user may away their vote. There is a reason why we don't want people knowing what we vote as it becomes a nuisance to receive PMs from mad people afterwards (it's happened plenty of times). Our vote is one vote anyway and nothing can be changed once voting has closed.

When I first got staff last year and began processing the bunch of pardons in queue, there was a huge issue with getting staff to vote within the time guidelines. We would often times still be missing the required votes past the two week mark. It was a huge issue. Now? If a pardon reaches the two week mark, it's because there is discussion or there are staff members abstaining. Most pardons are completed within a week if not sooner.

It doesn't take long to read a pardon and review the information posted by whoever processed the pardon and vote. It's not a waste of staff time as pardons are a very important thing to take time on. As for everything else, I feel the work load has been handled swiftly for months now. As for your dispute, yours was a different case. One of the ones that took discussion to resolve. That's not a bad thing, sometimes that's just how it is.

 

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

Staff isn't a paid position. Changing the nature of that will drastically alter staff. I would in no way support that. If this fee were to be passed, and not go to an outside charity, the community repayment thread or advertising/giveaway money for PR/CDT would be best

 

[Pain]

Repaying more than was originally scammed doesn't speak anything of character, but rather their wallet. Requiring people to repay more than is due to have an immediate unban is not a safe way to allow members back into the community. Sure, faster, but not safer, which is the point of processing pardons. We are evaluating these people who have done wrong. This wouldn't solve the evasion issue either.

We don't have a bias issue on pardons. You may not be able to see how or what we vote, but across the multiple staff teams I've been a part of since last December, they have always been solid in terms of voting fairly. Time to time I see staff abstaining from voting (they post to let others know) because of conflicts of interest or personal dislikes, or fear someone may assume their dislike for a certain user may away their vote. There is a reason why we don't want people knowing what we vote as it becomes a nuisance to receive PMs from mad people afterwards (it's happened plenty of times). Our vote is one vote anyway and nothing can be changed once voting has closed.

When I first got staff last year and began processing the bunch of pardons in queue, there was a huge issue with getting staff to vote within the time guidelines. We would often times still be missing the required votes past the two week mark. It was a huge issue. Now? If a pardon reaches the two week mark, it's because there is discussion or there are staff members abstaining. Most pardons are completed within a week if not sooner.

It doesn't take long to read a pardon and review the information posted by whoever processed the pardon and vote. It's not a waste of staff time as pardons are a very important thing to take time on. As for everything else, I feel the work load has been handled swiftly for months now. As for your dispute, yours was a different case. One of the ones that took discussion to resolve. That's not a bad thing, sometimes that's just how it is.

I'm at school but having scammers foot the bill for the teams sounds acceptable to me.

Let them flaunt their wallets, who cares? It's money being put back towards a good use vs the scammers keeping it in their bank accounts.

I don't support the full OP's suggestion but a blend of his idea of scammers paying extra to return is a good one.

Whether that money goes to the teams, staff or event funding it doesn't matter to me, the fact is scammers are essentially bankrolling the very site they scammed on originally which has a highly amusing and highly fitting conclusion for things.

We shouldn't let scammers return based on their wallet size - that part I agree with but I see no reason why scammers who have to pardon cant be marked up 25-33% or receive slightly better voting odds(i.e- 60% yes vs 66%) or something similar, this would keep a consistent cash flow flowing into the teams, events and staff(where it goes can be determined) throughout the year.

Highly fitting if u ask me. The scammer likely scammed more then what their having to repay, the scammer likely used that scammed money to make more of it, so why not make them pay 25-33% more than they originally scammed?

This is one of those niche pardon things where it wont effect true users trying to come back to the site, repaying 25-33% more than u scammed is a worthwhile penalty for anyone who wishes to return, it may discourage those with larger debts(i.e coin king) but lets be honest those with debts of those sizes aren't ever going to return - history has shown us that very clearly, their just going to ban evade which renders the argument that it might discourage scammers with large debts from pardoning irrelevant. If I felt it limited pardoning users in any form I wouldn't support it(because I am PRO pardon across the board and a supporter of DNT) but frankly this would solve a years old issue of funding the teams and it wouldn't really do any damage at all besides to those who scammed in the first place no?

It's not a rule crackdown, it just makes it so scammers who want to return have to contribute in some form(monetarily) back to the sites well being, they did damage to the site through their actions(scamming damages the site and causes users to leave the forum) so make them repay 25-33% of the damages they caused back to sythes teams so they can use it to undo the damage caused.

This is a win-win situation it just needs to be handled properly, allowing scammers to buy their way back in like OP suggested is not going to work but with some tweaks the idea has serious merit.

 

Personally think it's fine as is, however a few loose cannons get through which is inevitable with the amount of users banned from this site lol.

 

[Johnny]

Its coo

sith make $$$$

 

I'm a fan of people having to pay back extra, as an additional punishment and to help speed up community repayment etc. It also shows that they're clearly serious about wanting to rejoin the community. However, I'd just add this on to the additional system. As you mentioned in your disadvantages, I could see people paying their way back into the site and just planning a bigger one if they feel their initial scam quit wasn't large enough. Also, just paying to return shows no real reform and would allow toxic members to rejoin the community far too easily.