Introduction...

Before surging into feedback, I'd like to give an overall clarification of my position on the Request a Pardon process. First and foremost, I feel that the section is an asset to the site. We’d be foolish to maintain that individuals are incapable of change; that people cannot better themselves or see the light of ethics. If we assume the worst of people, we will get nothing but the worst of them. With this in mind, I do not seek to undermine the worth of the system that affords pardons, but rather to critique the way in which pardons are presently made. Whilst I have suggested that the forum is an asset to the site, it can only be an asset if pardons continue to be awarded in a fair and appropriate manner. The section’s operational flaws ought to be identified and examined within this thread. I offer suggestions to ameliorate the section further into the thread, though I should first take a moment to identify the current flaws and decisional liabilities that are damaging the forum.

1.) The approach taken when assessing pardons

Conceptually, the Request a Pardon process is still young. Implemented only earlier this year by Sythe and I, we discussed the concept briefly prior to its implementation. We acknowledged the fundamental aspects that we hoped to include, and, in my opinion, they have generally materialized. There is a culture of openness and honesty that can be seen in the way that the process functions. All users are able to access the forum and can thus read requests and respective decisions. However, whilst the forum is open for all to see, thorough and extensive scrutiny is prohibited by the elite approach to decision-making. Whilst I acknowledge the knowledge and evaluative caliber that Administrators both historically and presently possess, we should also seek to acknowledge the general fallibility of humankind. Whilst Administrators are less likely than other users to make mistakes when it comes to Sythe.org decision-making, they are, by no measures, perfect.

The reason Administrators do not dictatorially choose staff member and Official Middlemen is that a collective approach is a better one. Whilst more time-consuming, a collective assessment of an issue results in thoroughness and good debate, both of which are integral to good decision-making. To improve the section, a collective approach ought to be introduced, as, presently, the system allows for one member to make a decision. From bias, corruption and general lack of information, the flaws of one member making a decision are readily visible. Far better is a collective approach, and so a collective approach should be taken. All staff should be able to contribute to the process, as to cultivate healthy debate and rigorous assessment. Rather than having one individual making the decision, introduce voting.

2.) Those receiving pardons and those being denied pardons

Interconnected with the aforementioned flaw, certain individuals undeserving of pardons go pardoned, yet those deserving of pardons go unpardoned. This is most clear when we juxtapose the pardon attempts of Draucia and Josh0is0here, for example.

In 2007, Josh was an incredible staff member and had given so much to this site. He had previously scammed. His reformed character was evident in his dedication to the site, kindness, and willingness to help others. Josh confessed to his earlier scamming and was banned in the interest of fairness. Since being banned, he has neither caused trouble nor ban evaded. Contrarily, he still attempts to help out, and offered assistance to me innumerably whilst I was on the staff. Regardless, Josh was not pardoned.

Draucia, however, was. Where Josh was banned almost three years ago, Draucia was banned earlier this year. In his pardon request, he flagrantly ignored the rules of the process. He did not accept his offences and instead attempted to smear my character and justification for his removal. Despite his leaking from the Staff Lounge, ubiquitous trouble-making and support of Syed and others with due contempt for the site, Pen pardoned him. I’ve been meaning to make an issue of this, as the decision was made abruptly and without consulting me. I’m sure that Pen was aware that I would not have pardoned Draucia in a million years were I still on the staff team. Nonetheless, my ban was reversed. Pen did not consult me or ask why I had banned Draucia; he just went ahead and unbanned him. Juxtaposed with the case of Josh, this either demonstrates poor individual judgment or a flawed system. I do not feel that the former is the case, but rather that the approach taken towards pardons prevented the correct decision from being made. Had a collective approach been taken, I highly doubt that Draucia would have been pardoned in the face of a legitimate and good user like Josh being refused a pardon. This is because the expression of relevant information and healthy debate could not occur. As with before, a collective approach remedies this flaw.

If you’ve read this thread in its entirety, I praise your patience and will to see this site improved. If not, that’s alright, but I feel that you may find some truth in the aforementioned paragraphs if you take a few moments to skim read them. I do not write this thread to cause drama, but rather to improve a section I perceive to be flawed.

Reading atm.
It bugs me how most are simply 'denied' without a reason given.

__________________

Very well thought out Finn! I think it being a collective decision would be a great idea.

__________________

Admins should be entitled to arbitrarily make some decisions, but pardons are not one of them.

As permanent bans are not ever given out lightly, high pardons should not be given out at any one person's whim, with the obvious exception of Sythe himself, who owns this site and may make whichever decisions he wants. In the case that Sythe is not involved in a pardon request, pardons should be a collective decision.

Also, I fully support pardoning josh0is0here and reapplying Draucia's ban.

__________________

I will address the second point:

Josh was not pardoned because he had previously sent a private pardon request which had been rejected collectively by the Administrators. I'm sure you remember this.

As for Draucia, his ban was unjust. He was banned after he made a complaint about you: http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=942425&page=3

The leaking incident was long ago and it was decided that his punishment for leaking would be a demotion, not a permanent ban. As for drama whoring, I don't think that's a valid reason for a permanent ban.

Basically, what I Think ^.

The Pardon system should be a Staff Vote rather than Just an admin making dictatorially Decisions.

Support this 100%.

I think you've missed the point. The juxtapositioning of the two candidates for pardon is what you should be looking at. I think we can both see which individual is more deserving of the pardon, yet the more deserving candidate went unpardoned.

Moreover, you are wrong to say that his ban was unjust without consulting me beforehand. Is this because Draucia is your friend? He had disputed his ban whilst I was staff and you did not register a complaint with me when I denied it (more than once, I believe). Not only did I consult Sythe before banning him, but drama-whoring and leaking are both formidable reasons for his ban, not to mention his associations with Syed and other undesirables, which Sythe looks upon with great disdain - and for good reason. Why would individuals seek to associate with them if they themselves were legitimate and ethical?

In addition, if something being ''long ago'' (it wasn't, actually) now qualifies for a pardon, I expect you to revisit Josh's pardon request, or at least appropriately amend your position on his ban. He has been banned for almost three years.

I did not make this thread to campaign for Josh's unban, nor did I make it to campaign for Draucia's rebanning (although I think the latter particularly ought to be deeply considered by a neutral party). I juxtaposed the two cases only to show that the current system does not result in the most deserving candidates being pardoned; quite the contrary.

The "more deserving" individual was automatically denied because the admins collectively agreed to deny his request in October. You included.

No, Draucia is not my friend. Actually, I don't believe I've ever spoken to him since he was permanently banned. I'm not saying that something occurring long ago qualifies for a pardon, but that it's ridiculous to include leaking staff information in his ban reason when it was decided that his punishment for leaking was only a demotion. I know there are personal differences between the two of you, and that definitely played a role in his banning.

I know this thread isn't a thread for Josh's unbanning or Draucia's banning, but those are examples you have brought up, for which I'm posting my reasoning.

Although I hate how Pen simply writes denied without any further explanation or reasoning, but I agree with his decision making in this example, unless their is something else you have to add to support Draucia's ban. The system has flaws and they are pretty well outlined. You could have chosen a better example because if josh was to remained banned as a collective decision by all admins then Pen is correct.

__________________
My only msn is [email protected].
Click my signature to see my vouches (35+).

[url="http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=957654"]

I could go on about Draucia all day or trouble Sythe with the case, seeing as he approved it. Point is, I don't have the time or energy. If anyone has further feedback on the suggestion within the thread (i.e. a collective approach to pardons), I'd be glad to hear it.

So for the collective decision, would it be just the admins or a larger group?
I'm wondering because what if the vote is split since there is an even number.

__________________

I think all staff should be able to have input on threads. Perhaps only upper (Global and Admin.) staff should be able to vote. This is only my suggestion, though. There could be benefits of having all staff vote.

It is ironic that you complain about Draucia's unban, when you were no more interested in anyone else's opinion when you unbanned Atomic.

Yes, there are bizarre cases where second chances are deserved, but they're rare enough that a forum is unnecessary. I maintain that the section is merely a breeding ground for bias, a complete contradiction to the one-month rule, and the site would be better without.

*Goes back into hiding*

Obviously not, seeing as Atomic was shortly rebanned as I bowed to R2's greater knowledge of the situation at hand. Don't waste my time trying to provoke me with snide remarks, Sin. Stay banned or come back and bitch more.

Fully agree with the Josh/Draucia situation. Draucia has been nothing more than an annoying little shit since he got banned for leaking (which, in my opinion, should count him out of being pardoned so soon).

__________________

__________________

Don't try to tell me the reasoning behind my own actions, thank-you. You could just as well say that Pen contravened Sythe's decision by pardoning him. Like I've said, I care not to further discuss this, as it could go on indefinitely and would certainly not bring out my best colours during the Christmas season.

Incidentally, I'd appreciate it if this was moved to Suggestions; this thread has partly been misconstrued and has partly been misrepresented by me. It is ultimately a calling for pardons to be collectively made; to give all staff a role in pardoning users rather than an individual Administrator.

Done.

__________________

By far the best post I have seen on Sythe in a long time.

Now, back on topic. The reasoning behind the suggestion is solid, although there are still a few problems with it. First off, as with most other staff decisions, I would hope that the discussion was kept to globals and administrators, as sectionals are not experienced enough and too easily swayed by others to be of any use at all. Secondly, as of current, there is only four globals. This presents a problem as there is still going to be tendency of people to side with authority or agree without really thinking about the issue. In my experiences, there were many staff votes that seemed won until one person went against the majority and pointed out a flaw which turned the vote right around. With these problems, although minor, the effects of changing the system may not be very major and may not help at all.

__________________

Finn, I respect you and your suggestion. As SuF said, I think it should stay between the Globals and Admins as the Sectionals could be easily manipulated. I think there should be second opinions rather than Pen posting "Denied" every time without no reasoning, etc. In short, I support this suggestion.