Allow warnings based perm bans to be appealed

[Joshua C]

I honestly think they should allow it.
I honestly don't think people should be banned for reaching such a biased margin of 75 points.

I have no idea when will Justis and Co implement the expire-able warnings but people who are still being banned for rules violations should get another chance for sure.

Users I would like to mention:

FoundYourFlow
remibarna
Dropset
katana2
Zelda

And more on the list I can't find.

Allow the community to vote if they want the user in the community back? that could be one thing.
For example I'm pretty sure any single one of us would want Callum back because he spammed all over.

But remibarna was a nice guy, so the community can allow him to be back.

If the ban is lifted there warnings should not get reset but rather set to 35 points or something.



And thanks to all the staff for making this thread a success by writing huge long story paragraphs below this post.

 

[Joshua C]

Wait when and why was FoundYourFlow banned???

Yesterday.

 

[Joshua C]

What for?

The reason the suggestion is made for.

 

[Anvity]

Zelda and FoundYourFlow shouldn’t be banned. Especially Zelda, he was a nice person.

 

[jxhdvn]

A counter argument to this is that the user had to do a lot of shit and get into trouble many times to rack up that many points - how do you respond to that? I’m saving you the response from staff because they always say this

 

[Joshua C]

A counter argument to this is that the user had to do a lot of shit and get into trouble many times to rack up that many points - how do you respond to that? I’m saving you the response from staff because they always say this

Like I mentioned in my thread.

"staff is going to put up whole paragraphs referring to a no to suggestions, they don't do this once but a lot of times.
The fact is even if they do shit, go for a community vote if they want the user to stay or not, if they don't then the ban should surely apply.

 

[NJ_]

I ran into EclipseBoy320 on a TF2 game the other day by complete chance, and it kinda made me think about this. Tbh I really don't think that the punishment should really be the same as that for scamming or threatening etc, when in 99% of cases its the same couple of menial rules like 1.6

 

[jxhdvn]

Like I mentioned in my thread.

"staff is going to put up whole paragraphs referring to a no to suggestions, they don't do this once but a lot of times.
The fact is even if they do shit, go for a community vote if they want the user to stay or not, if they don't then the ban should surely apply.

I don’t know if a community vote would be appropriate in this situation - I could see this being used negatively. Imagine a very hated user gets banned for this and appeals and doesn’t win and gets it sent to the community vote stage, and people hate him so much that he isn’t voted back in. I know multiple users that this scenario could happen to. That right there will cause even more problems. And a community vote in this situation I don’t know would be a good idea all in itself as well. I’m all in favor of this but I’m fearful this wouldn’t work out well. The community vote part I don’t think would happen - just the ability to appeal after being banned for 75 points

 

[Zyger]

Pretty sure remibarna was a troll and wanted to be banned

 

[Joshua C]

Pretty sure remibarna was a troll and wanted to be banned

Didnt' saw the images but as far as I remember he was banned in sh outbox not sure why, and he's member since 2015.

A troll can be Callum who bullshited every other post but someone like remibarna who only made funny topics and such, not really.
And I don't think any of those 2 posts violate rules, expect the eGirl one.

 

[Zyger]

Didnt' saw the images but as far as I remember he was banned in sh outbox not sure why, and he's member since 2015.

A troll can be Callum who bullshited every other post but someone like remibarna who only made funny topics and such, not really.
And I don't think any of those 2 posts violate rules, expect the eGirl one.

Yeah I added the images after, and ik they don't violate it, was just showing that they're kinda troll threads.

Also apparently he made a thread "disrespecting women and said the n word", which may have been the cause of hitting the 75 warning points, but it's since been deleted:

 

[Joshua C]

Yeah I added the images after, and ik they don't violate it, was just showing that they're kinda troll threads.

Also aparrently he made a thread "disrespecting women and said the n word", which may have been the cause of hitting the 75 warning points, but it's since been deleted:

If the user deleted it before any staff noticed it, its probably good he was trolling someone but he was not shitting on every other post.

 

[Tofty]

We spoke about this in the shout box earlier, if I recall correctly.

Users currently can appeal warning points-based bans, as they can create a temporary/appeal account and appeal the individual warnings which have led to the 75 warning point threshold being hit.

 

[SheepeyDarkness]

A counter argument to this is that the user had to do a lot of shit and get into trouble many times to rack up that many points - how do you respond to that? I’m saving you the response from staff because they always say this

Well sometimes people just blatantly don't care, but some people have been on this site for 3+ years. A little here and there can add up. Especially when they didn't expire. I literally got 10 warning points ( and a 1 week ban ) because a friend's paypal didn't work. So I bought him premium and he paid me the money on paypal and staff won't remove it.

 

[Kram]

I believe community votes can be abused and I don't think a system like that is a good idea. Ban appeals would become basically a popularity contest if this was done.
Personally, I don't think people who have 15-20 warnings and got banned should be allowed back, which is almost always constantly breaking the same rule multiple times over. What I wouldn't be completely opposed to is for those banned for excessive warning points because they had a large warning such as 1.23 and got 35 warning points then but we have changed it to 15 warning points now. People with those warnings I feel like if they appeal I would be more open towards letting them back.
However, only 1 person in the 5 names you initially gave was warned for 1.23 and even if that warning was removed he has broken other rules that he has not been warned for yet so if that 1 warning was changed he'd still be banned again for the other rules he'd be warned for.
The other 4 people got banned primarily because they kept breaking one of our rules after already being warned. For 3 of them, they had more than 8 warnings for breaking rule 1.6
Someone who has consistently disrespected, harassed, trolled, or hated on, members of the forum should not be allowed back.

 

[SUPAH]

I believe community votes can be abused and I don't think a system like that is a good idea. Ban appeals would become basically a popularity contest if this was done.
Personally, I don't think people who have 15-20 warnings and got banned should be allowed back, which is almost always constantly breaking the same rule multiple times over. What I wouldn't be completely opposed to is for those banned for excessive warning points because they had a large warning such as 1.23 and got 35 warning points then but we have changed it to 15 warning points now. People with those warnings I feel like if they appeal I would be more open towards letting them back.
However, only 1 person in the 5 names you initially gave was warned for 1.23 and even if that warning was removed he has broken other rules that he has not been warned for yet so if that 1 warning was changed he'd still be banned again for the other rules he'd be warned for.
The other 4 people got banned primarily because they kept breaking one of our rules after already being warned. For 3 of them, they had more than 8 warnings for breaking rule 1.6
Someone who has consistently disrespected, harassed, trolled, or hated on, members of the forum should not be allowed back.

The way the site is set up, is you’re deemed to eventually get perm banned. Warning points never expire and everyone will slip up here and there over time but with your response “someone who has broke the rule repetitively shouldn’t be unbanned”? Someone will eventually say something and slip up after time, it’s only natural. Not many people will argue if you can take another approach to the warning system.

 

[jxhdvn]

I believe community votes can be abused and I don't think a system like that is a good idea. Ban appeals would become basically a popularity contest if this was done.
Personally, I don't think people who have 15-20 warnings and got banned should be allowed back, which is almost always constantly breaking the same rule multiple times over. What I wouldn't be completely opposed to is for those banned for excessive warning points because they had a large warning such as 1.23 and got 35 warning points then but we have changed it to 15 warning points now. People with those warnings I feel like if they appeal I would be more open towards letting them back.
However, only 1 person in the 5 names you initially gave was warned for 1.23 and even if that warning was removed he has broken other rules that he has not been warned for yet so if that 1 warning was changed he'd still be banned again for the other rules he'd be warned for.
The other 4 people got banned primarily because they kept breaking one of our rules after already being warned. For 3 of them, they had more than 8 warnings for breaking rule 1.6
Someone who has consistently disrespected, harassed, trolled, or hated on, members of the forum should not be allowed back.

i mean if you’re here for years the fact that majority of the warnings you guys have in place do not expire can catch up to you