The Pardon System

I don't think its right that if no one posts on a pardon within 7 days it gets denied. If the mod/admin doesn't support that pardon, he can post that he doesn't support it. I assume that people read them and if you read it, just post a small reply, I don't think thats too much to ask for when people spent time thinking out a sincere apology and want to return back in to the community.

I read the pardons cause they are just interesting and it seems as if, if you weren't somebody well known, you don't even get the courtesy of a reply.

 

No reply from a staff member is the same as not supporting it. There's no reason for us to go and post on every single pardon "no support" when we can just as easily not reply and get the same point across that way.

 

Thats the idea. If your not known then you must not have done a lot for the site. Its not a 2nd chance forum, its to allow those that have contributed a good amount to the site a chance to return.

97% denial rate is just right.

 

You can contribute a good amount and still not be known. But I guess that's just my opinion. I'm sure when comparing your contributions (as a mod+) to other people's contributions it seems like they have not done anything at all.

 

Users are allowed to state what they think their contributions to the site were - if they say they tried to be an involved community member and posted thoughtful suggestions, feedback, and off-topic discussions, we can view their posts and judge them accordingly. As I pointed out in the staff forum, it really only takes the support of one mod to attract the interest of the rest.

The problem is, most people regard the pardon forum like Dopamine does: merely a second chance at a dispute when lying fails. Not only is it easier to judge the sincerity of users who are more familiar (because frankly, anyone can feign regret), but we also need a good reason to justify the risk that their apology is not sincere.

 

I fully agree with Sin here, although my viewing of High Pardon's is strictly from an active member's point of view, most High Pardon's I lay eyes on are scammers who come clean after a moderator catches them lying in their dispute. They're sorry for the fact that they got caught, rather then sorry for the actions which got them banned in the first place.

Some try and type up elaborate and heartwarming stories as to why they should be unbanned, but I can assure you it's simply a guise to win over the heart of the readers. There's a reason why regular users don't have a say in who gets unbanned, and I place full trust in our staff's collective judgment on deciding whether or not a pardon is accepted or denied.

 

Honestly, I agree with OP on this one. It's not really that difficult making a post and state whether you support it... Otherwise we, the community, might get the impression that you're not reading the pardons at all unless it's a familar name that pops up.

 

I personally think the pardon system is perfect the way it is, and I fully agreed with what sin said. Most people only pull it when their dispute fails.

 

Have always wondered this as well, it looks like no one even cares about them?
@n4n0, so your saying mods go through each thread and read usually an essay of pleading and they end up not replying?
Or do they only like replying to people that are well known.

 

Not only is 7 days a very small window, considering alot of time staff members are not active in that forum, away from sythe, etc.

Alot of the time I see pardons get buried. I remember one pardon right around the time wulfspade and n4n0 were pardoning, the guy had to beg people just to look at it. It eventually ended up getting supported. If he hadn't non-stopped agitated the staff, even though it's not a great thing to do, it would of got denied to do the 7 day rule. I agree with the OP when it comes to the time length. Maybe on occasion the points that FireZ, N4n0, and Sin distributed are true, but the other times it happens, it's an awful thing. You can only pardon every 6 months. I for one would hate to put that much effort, after waiting 6 months, let it get buried because I wasn't very known on the forum. Especially if that rule was something minor as excessive bumping or some kind of ridiculous drama.

 

I think they should be given 3 weeks before being denied for no support.

1 week is pretty unfair.

 

Typically, I only reply to pardons that I can post in favor of, or know there's no chance of. If I don't think the user has really contributed much, or don't really buy into the apology - ie, think a pardon is unlikely, but don't have a particularly strong opinion about, I usually don't post anything. (In part because 80-90% of pardons deserve a no, and while I'll say it to a million disputes, I don't think anyone really wants to play the bad guy by saying no to all the users who look all trite and repentant to the community.)

 

I read all pardons. When I don't post, it's a silent no support as other moderators do so.

 

Would it be that much harder to simply post "no support" on the thread? This way the person who is making the pardon actually knows that he has no support but at least his/her pardon is recognized.

 

If we all posted no-support on the threads, it'd make us look like assholes.

 

I get where your coming from, but not posting makes you look like more ass holes. Should atleast do something. When a pardon gets submitted and through out the entire week, not a single person posts, it just makes you look arrogant.

 

I actually have to agree with you on this. Not posting or doing something at all makes it seem like you couldn't care less whether or not the person was genuine. If a few days go by without anyone responding(your so called 'silent no'), maybe the 4th or 5th, could someone at least step up and say they don't support along with a (small) reason as to why?

Also, a week does seem a little short...maybe increase it to 2?

 

Pardons should only be granted in exceptional circumstances. No post means no support, because the only people who deserve to be pardoned are the ones who quickly gain immense support amongst the staff.

Keep in mind that a user requesting a pardon acknowledges that they broke rules so a pardon is basically asking for their rulebreaking to be forgiven. Why should we explain to rulebreakers why we don't support them? By default, we don't support any pardon requests unless the user is outstanding.

 

My suggestion is that before a pardon gets automatically denied in 7 days for no support at least one admin has to write a reply. That reply could be as simple as 'no support' but I think that would make a big difference to people's opinions.

 

I'm not sure if most of you realize that most of the people asking for a pardon were banned for scamming. If they scammed in the past, they'll more than likely scam again the future. It takes a lot to convince us that the person has changed.