Veto...

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Once one admin has veoted or commented on a pardon, another admin only really needs to give input if they have personal experience with the user and have more to add or they disagree with the veto. In which case, you can assume they agree with the veto.

 

The thing I don't get here is there is NO problem with the veto usage or pardon system....so don't fix what isn't broken. If you want reasoning then that is reasonable to have required or 2 admins to veto isn't all that extreme.

 

In your eyes there may be no problems with it but I think it's pretty obvious not everyone has your eyes.

 

This. Firez has already said that veto's can be challenge and requiring more than one admin to post on a pardon is unnecessary.

Maybe if the system didn't allow other mods/admins challenge; the requirements of two admins to veto would be needed, but this isn't the case and the system isn't broken.

 

Well considering all that have been said i believe that Sythe and the people of Sythe has spoken so why are we still debating on the fact of Veto's. 2/3 admins need to veto something isent that what everyone is saying ?

 

Has this been implemented?

 

We can implement double vetoing today if you like?

 

Might as well. It's pretty simple to implement..

 

this.. for this topic i think i would work well.

 

On the topic of explanations... why was Semper's pardon vetoed when everyone was supporting it?

 

The issue many people have with your vetoes, FireZ, is that you sometimes make them not only instead of a no-support vote, but against the majority view. The fact is that that's imposing your judgement over the rest of the staff and an admin's judgement isn't necessarily better than that of the rest of the staffs'. If you see a large amount of supports on a pardon, replace the veto with a no-support. If you must, delete-post an explanation for the rest of the staff, but still let them present an opinion - halting the process completely before a proper discussion is had is pretty unfair and rather egotistical.
If you feel the rest of the staff are unable to pass proper judgement, like you said a few pages back, you might want to talk to them and explain your reasoning since that's a serious issue, and a recurring lapse of judgement can cause nasty accidents along the line of Corey's.

 

This 100x this, It seems as though firez values his opinon over the rest of the staffs judgment entirely. Im not sure if i have ever seen him post "no support" on anything, no he always vetoes. I just dont think anyone persons opinion outside of sythe himself should overrule anyone elses in matters like these as individuals are far more prone to butthurt and the like affecting their judgment. (not making accusations simply stating a fact). Id like to see the pardon system removed altogether honestly or at the very least the 3 admin veto, it just seems pointless having other staff weigh in on anything when their support of lack thereof means NOTHING in the end.

 

In my opinion a lot of sectionals when voting don't have the knowledge of everything which occured during the time. I personally would prefer global+ only be able to make pardons visible and post the ban reason as it appears in the ban log. This way everyone should know exactly what happened rather than how it is now where a lot of sectionals are pretty easy to build friendships with and gain their support without even knowing the full reason of the ban, if its a big issue with security just make those posts with the reason invisible to wveryone apart from staff.

I found this to be q huge problem when i was staff and seen it happen with a few people where sectionals took the persons words as the truth before even knowing the actual reason. I know in sl it would be challenged but the community all everyone will see is supports and denied which really wouldn't add up so why not make everyone informed before they vote.

Like i previously stated firez bases his vetos on the proof in sl and what he has knowledge of, i would trust his judgement over that of 5 misinformed sectionals.

 

This looks like it's been put in place?

 

I wouldn't have one other than for random times where a mod/admin got angry and banned someone out of hatred rather than actually because they did something.

Having all these restitutions devalues the punishment of the ban there are a ton of people who got by without scamming and either moved on or are still here.

 

This. The amount of administrators needed to veto won't change a single thing as they would most likely be able to easily obtain another administrator in support.

It must be remembered that the administrators ultimately run the site; if you don't trust their judgement, I don't understand why you're here. There isn't any obligation for the administrators to justify their opinions (Richard just tries implement a level of fairness out of his own personal opinion and goodwill); it's a privately owned site, and frankly if an administrator doesn't want a member returning they probably have some sort of reason (even having a person who constantly annoys an administrator can be detrimental to their work-rate, their willingness to come to the site to administrate at all, etc).

 

Yes Tribal you are right admins to run the site and we should trust there judgment but its human nature for people's judgment to be challenged and obviously its not just 1 person who wishes for this system to be changed, its not the matter of trusting there judgment its the fact that sometimes there judgment can be a Little off, thats all im sayin.

 

You have a government running a country who have implemented a court system where (most of the time) it isn't one person deciding the outcome.

 

If you really want to draw similarities and differences, then firstly the website runs on a degree of just dictatorship due to the fact that Richard owns the website, he pays for it, and ultimately runs the website by delegating his power to his administrators (who in turn through the moderators are able to influence the whole running of the site). There isn't a judicial branch keeping the aforementioned executives of the site in check, because Richard wouldn't want members of a site being able to change his executive decisions - the executives of this site more or less act as the judicial figures themselves. Furthermore, had you actually read my post, you'd understand that there isn't any obligation for this site to be run as a democracy; whilst some factors of it take into account the userbase, others never will (administrators will never for instance allow everyone to see the Staff Lounge, Upper Staff Lounge or the Administrators' Lounge).

Disallowing an administrator (who accounts for an incredibly large proportion for the site's direction in progress, it's ethos and even its community agenda) a veto in the case for a member who has proven himself in some way or other to have been unhelpful to the community (don't get me wrong, I was incredibly fond of Macroman, Shredderbeam, and many other banned members, but it's a matter of principle) is simply an insult.

It's within human nature to also befriend others who have common elements to you, what makes you think that in any way an administrator wouldn't want to support a fellow administrator's decision to veto a member who may impact on how efficiently they're allowed to work on this site? This isn't the US Supreme Court, this is a bunch of people with which friendship and support is usually a requirement if the site is to run smoothly at all.

 

Would say his is a pretty fair solution protecting users against the worst bias.

Pretty fair/easy solution.