Small Pardon Change

[tMoon]

The suggestion is simple. If someone is asking for a pardon that directly affected a specific staff member, that specific staff member should not have a say in that individual(s) pardon.

Why? Biasness is human nature, and it's quite possible someone will simply say "no" to someone that has done them wrong in the past.


Thoughts?


Note: By a say, I mean as in that staff members vote should not have an effect on the outcome of the pardon.


Edit:
Suggestion #2 for Pardons:

When someone posts why they support, or don't support; they should have reasoning behind it. (Just like the suggestions forum.)

 

[Blupig]

I don't think many staff react with bias (which would be counter-productive to their rank wouldn't it?) but it would definitely eliminate any chance at all that such bias would occur.

 

[FireZ]

Edit:
Suggestion #2 for Pardons:

When someone posts why they support, or don't support; they should have reasoning behind it. (Just like the suggestions forum.)

We don't owe them an explanation. They aren't entitled to one, its at our free will if we wish to expand on a view or not.

 

[SuF]

We don't owe them an explanation. They aren't entitled to one, its at our free will if we wish to expand on a view or not.

In a slightly nicer way....

I sometimes say why or why I don't support a pardon but I try not to give them very many ideas of how to sway me. If I say something they generally post another wall of text to try to appease what I am saying. I try to keep reasoning as short as possible so that they have to figure it out for themselves. Also, many times people do say why the don't support. Sometimes if something is striking, I'l quote and bold it. Other times its just not a good pardon or its just eh and I don't not support it for any reason other than I don't really have an urge to support it and generally if people do support something, they are doing so because they feel like they have met the requirements for a pardon.

And one voice within the staff isn't going to sway things and many times the staff will not vote on their own accord so its really not a big issue in my head.

 

[Superman]

The suggestion is simple. If someone is asking for a pardon that directly affected a specific staff member, that specific staff member should not have a say in that individual(s) pardon.

What about if the pardon wasn't about a specific event that affected a staff member? Would that staff member still be entitled to post his/her opinion on the pardon?

Also, what if a staff member had good experiences with the member requesting a pardon? Would he/she be allowed to post his/her opinion?

 

[Tckr]

I think staff should have to post why they don't support or support a pardon.

 

[Sypherz]

You guys are forgetting the the a High Pardon is a privilege. The person requesting the pardon doesn't really have the right to ask for privledges.

 

[SuF]

You guys are forgetting the the a High Pardon is a privilege. Pardon my language, but the staff doesn't have to do shit for [the banned member] if they don't want to.

Sometimes banned members don't deserve to be banned and regardless they should at least be treated as a person. A person's a person no matter how small.

 

[Sypherz]

I understand. Having received a pardon myself, I can say that I've been there. But it is a privilege given by the staff. I feel like if you have been banned for good reason and you are being given a shot at a second chance, you shouldn't be all that expecting.

Sometimes banned members don't deserve to be banned

This isn't what high pardons are for though. You have to admit to the charge in order for it to be considered, don't you?

 

[djweasel]

Well I have involved myself with a pardon that was made by a member who said he was guilty of framing someone. He never mentioned being involved with framing me also so I denied him after others.

Then another kid scammed me a year ago and made a pardon. I didn't get involved because I did get my money but he also failed at a pardon.

So if we are involved in the ban we should have a reason to sy why we think u should e banned. Especially globals since it is our duty.

 

[Confuzzled77]

I agree with both suggestions, with a stipulation that you go with SUF's method for #2.

And with superman, to the first "what if" is this saying that a user committed 2 separate deeds, one directly involving and one not in the same time? If so, then I'm assuming the answer is still no, the directly affected staff should not get involved. If it is for different time periods, then the user should be perm banned for getting one pardon then screwing up again later.
For the second "what-if", the answer is yes, the staff would be able to post because this is unrelated to his suggestion. He says " directly affected" not "had good experiences" because those good experiences are not DIRECTLY related.

This should pass because it is only concerned with making sythe a fairer place. Its far too easy for one pissed off staff member to create more trouble than the pardon was worth. <- This comes from past experience here on sythe.

Edit: Someone give me a Govind buck. I want one.

 

[bruceyb]

We don't owe them an explanation. They aren't entitled to one, its at our free will if we wish to expand on a view or not.

Don't act as if you've never made a mistake. Don't act as if you're better than anyone else. They do deserve an explanation no matter what their mistake was.

 

[I Am Sexy]

We don't owe them an explanation. They aren't entitled to one, its at our free will if we wish to expand on a view or not.

An admin saying that? Gtfo..

Anyone is entitled to an explanation, whatever the cause. Also, you're no better than me or anyone else here for that matter.

What an arrogant kid.

 

[xkronic]

I agree with explaining why they don't support & if you don't want to give an explanation don't even comment on there pardon.

You guys are forgetting the the a High Pardon is a privilege. The person requesting the pardon doesn't really have the right to ask for privledges.

I believe the main reason high pardons got instated is to give members who have done wrong in the past and is there last attempt to make up for it in posting a Pardon to show the staff how you have changed and what you bring to the community it has noting to do with preivledges.
I do sometimes believe sometimes pardons are Corrupt because it seems they get the support of the mod if they like that user or not not saying all staff do this they dont but some do and its wrong.

We don't owe them an explanation. They aren't entitled to one, its at our free will if we wish to expand on a view or not.

FireZ i must admit your help alot towards to community and now your admin im sure you do even more which we we dont no about you are a great person but this speech above is not right my friend yes some people who get banned on sythe for scamming then try make a pardon straight away without learning the mistakes but people like that don't even deserve a post but people who staff do post on deserve an explanation to why you think they should/shouldnt be about back here at sythe.

 

[FlyingToast]

We don't owe them a second chance is what I assume FireZ was trying to say. If we don't support the pardon, we shouldn't have to go into great detail why we don't want a banned user back.

 

[SuF]

FireZ said what I said in a more frank way. They are not entitled to anything and if they feel like they are, they won't be pardoned anyways.

 

[cosrob97]

Refer to Govind's new thread about pardons.