Banned Player Re-Implementation Program

[James 1]

Hi there, my name is James, and I'm here to suggest an idea of re-implementing banned users, the same way convicts are allowed back into society after a duration of time.


So let's get started. I wanted to start a new "program" that could possibly bring back some old people who have done wrong, and give them a second chance to do right.


These are the terms I have thought of

- After one year (the time can be negotiated) of serving the ban the user would then receive some form of notification asking him if he would like to try The Re-implementation program.

If the user declines, he/she will be banned again, and given the same opportunity the following year.

If he chooses to accept, the user would then be given a specific tag that only allows him to submit support tickets. In that support ticket he would explain why he/she has decided to come back. The moderator would then proceed by reviewing the reason why he/she was banned and then request the user to return the funds stolen from the victim.

~ If the user declines, he will be banned again, and he will be given the same opportunity the following year

~ If the user accepts, and pays back the person who he/she scammed, they may be granted access to the forums but with a special tag (ie Probation) showing that he/she has previously scammed other people. (The tag would serve as warning to users when going into a deal)

After 10 months (the time can be negotiated) has passed, the probation tag will be removed, and he/she will revert to being a normal member. (Or the tag could be there forever)

- In the event that the user decides to scam once again after being given the opportunity to return to being a normal member, they will be added to a specific list in which they may never be allowed to return to MC-Market ever again.


Thank you for reading, I hope you judge this as unbiasedly as humanely possible. In the event you do not like the idea, please explain why, and give some examples as to how you would change the initial concept.

 

[ItzOrg]

Hi there, my name is James, and I'm here to suggest an idea of re-implementing banned users, the same way convicts are allowed back into society after a duration of time.


So let's get started. I wanted to start a new "program" that could possibly bring back some old people who have done wrong, and give them a second chance to do right.


These are the terms I have thought of

- After one year (the time can be negotiated) of serving the ban the user would then receive some form of notification asking him if he would like to try The Re-implementation program.

If the user declines, he/she will be banned again, and given the same opportunity the following year.

If he chooses to accept, the user would then be given a specific tag that only allows him to submit support tickets. In that support ticket he would explain why he/she has decided to come back. The moderator would then proceed by reviewing the reason why he/she was banned and then request the user to return the funds stolen from the victim.

~ If the user declines, he will be banned again, and he will be given the same opportunity the following year

~ If the user accepts, and pays back the person who he/she scammed, they may be granted access to the forums but with a special tag (ie Probation) showing that he/she has previously scammed other people. (The tag would serve as warning to users when going into a deal)

After 10 months (the time can be negotiated) has passed, the probation tag will be removed, and he/she will revert to being a normal member. (Or the tag could be there forever)

- In the event that the user decides to scam once again after being given the opportunity to return to being a normal member, they will be added to a specific list in which they may never be allowed to return to MC-Market ever again.


Thank you for reading, I hope you judge this as unbiasedly as humanely possible. In the event you do not like the idea, please explain why, and give some examples as to how you would change the initial concept.

Maybe we could have them do ban appeals first?

 

[James 1]

Deep Why did you decide to rate the post with disagree?

 

[Deep]

Too risky, they might scam again for a higher amount.

 

[James 1]

Too risky, they might scam again for a higher amount.

That's why they would have the Probation tag so users can identify the person easily. Which would hopefully reduce the odds of players doing high value trades with that user until they have been successfully re-implemented.[DOUBLEPOST=1465351827][/DOUBLEPOST]

Maybe we could have them do ban appeals first?

Can you please provide a little more information as to how that would go?

 

[Deep]

That's why they would have the Probation tag so users can identify the person easily. Which would hopefully reduce the odds of players doing high value trades with that user until they have been successfully re-implemented.

I'm saying after their 'probation' tag is removed they can still scam people for more mon y than they scammed before.

 

[ItzOrg]

That's why they would have the Probation tag so users can identify the person easily. Which would hopefully reduce the odds of players doing high value trades with that user until they have been successfully re-implemented.[DOUBLEPOST=1465351827][/DOUBLEPOST]
Can you please provide a little more information as to how that would go?

We could have an application they could fill out, then they may be accepted into the program.

 

[Jacob Smith]

What if the probation tag is removed but on their account it says "has been known to scam before for the amount (insert amount)"? I think everyone deserves a second chance.

 

[Gruss]

Once is a banned user is banned, they should stay banned. Plain and simple.

 

[Sloth]

No offense to the OP but what is with all these recent suggestions suggesting we unban banned users? We all do understand that we have rules in place for a reason. These users CHOSE to break the rules and get banned, knowing the consequences. As Gruss stated, they need to stay banned.

 

[James 1]

Once is a banned user is banned, they should stay banned. Plain and simple.

Even if they undo the wrong? How many times have you asked your teacher or parent for a second shot at doing something. They would only be allowed back if they undid their wrong.

 

[Jacob Smith]

No offense to the OP but what is with all these recent suggestions suggesting we unban banned users? We all do understand that we have rules in place for a reason. These users CHOSE to break the rules and get banned, knowing the consequences. As Gruss stated, they need to stay banned.

I agree but how different are you this year then you where last year? Again, I agree they chose to break the rules, but also take that into consideration.

 

[James 1]

No offense to the OP but what is with all these recent suggestions suggesting we unban banned users? We all do understand that we have rules in place for a reason. These users CHOSE to break the rules and get banned, knowing the consequences. As Gruss stated, they need to stay banned.

Even if they decide to undo the wrong? How many times have you asked your teacher or parent for a second shot at doing something. They would only be allowed back if they undid their wrong. Plus this may give the victims a chance at getting their money back.

 

[James 1]

asa and Doge - Why did you decide to disagree with this idea? Please explain why, and give some examples as to how you would change the initial concept.

 

[asa]

no - banned users were banned for a reason, they shouldn't be unbanned unless they were falsely banned, like Ajdin was, or Sloth was.

 

[Sloth]

What if they don't decide to undo the wrong. Your argument is based off the fact that all these good Samaritans will just fall in line no questions asked. Another thing to take into accountability is that if we unban one user for mutliaccounting we must unban ALL users for that very offense to allow a sense of fairness. Sooner or later we'll have hundreds of rule breakers back on the site. There will also be a higher demand for staff to work the program. I don't think they want to help those who broke their rules.

 

[asa]

this is a Minecraft forum, not a court of law or a prison, I don't understand why users have been trying to treat this like a real life prison scenario as of late.

 

[Jacob Smith]

What if they don't decide to undo the wrong. Your argument is based off the fact that all these good Samaritans will just fall in line no questions asked. Another thing to take into accountability is that if we unban one user for mutliaccounting we must unban ALL users for that very offense to allow a sense of fairness. Sooner or later we'll have hundreds of rule breakers back on the site. There will also be a higher demand for staff to work the program. I don't think they want to help those who broke their rules.

I agree. This case should be closed.