[DENIED] Add pardon cooldown after being punished

Prime examples would be Bryan, Buyacc, Nate, Ape etc. They either admitted to ban evasion or got caught ban evading. While I have literally nothing to any of those individuals, I do feel like they have yet to serve their time. Of course the times of high donors etc are more valuable than those who just joined Sythe, but in the end they did scam innocent human beings from their money and did not care at the time they commited the crime.

Since we like to compare everything to the law here on Sythe, let's compare this to it. You can't just rob a bank, get away with it - eventually own up to it/get caught and get away with it again. You'll most likely be brought into court and sit it out atleast a while. Owning up to it might result in a shorter time, while getting caught puts you in jail for a longer time.

Right now we could compare @Ape to @Nate (again no offense to both indivuduals - I both like you around) in which case Ape would own up to ban evading and Nate would get caught doing it, but in the end both end up getting pardoned "with a slap on the wrist" as @Chloe said it, or even, without a slap on the wrist.
^ I am hereby not leaking Nate's pardon results by the way, I'm just providing you with an example.

The solution I'm thinking of:
- Deny all pardons for atleast 3 months after they were either banned or DNT'ed. Meaning that if I were to get DNT'ed for ban evading or if I were to get banned for scamming today I'd atleast serve a time for 3 months, which means I'm allowed to pardon on August 6th, 2018.

I'm fine with a smaller time they'd have to serve, such as a month, but the way it is right now just doesn't really do much of it's work. Right now they're getting away with scamming pretty easily (regardless of it being ages ago) and there's literally nothing holding them back to do it again.

 

I like this idea, i'm included in it, but that's my own fault. This needs to be case by case related though, I myself didn't come out, but the second I was caught I fed you @Wortel, @Pendulum, everything you needed to properly file my pardon, I then paid back my debts as soon as the one user in question answered me back. My actions by not honing up in the first place surely make me look like a pussy, and at the same time would have made me look better had I, but I was enjoying my experience here, and didn't want to tarnish it, as selfish and douchebaggy as that sounds. I knew that becoming friends with @Wortel ultimately would lead to me being caught, because I knew my loophole existed, but he is a nice guy and still kept talking to him despite that. I think 3 months would be steep in my case, but someone like Jack, paper shark, Let's go retards! Would attribute to his own demise by stating his debts haven't been paid and he is waiting to do so. I did what I could to fix the issue the second I got caught. Also Wortel, I believe a better way to resolve this is instead of denying the pardon, put it on a temporary hold, where staff vote on the pardon, should it be denied the user will be put on the pardon voting list as denied, but if accepted the same, but with the time frame listed with the pardon so for paper shark it could be Paper shark - denied (5-6-18), for me it could be Bryan - accepted (5-6-18, to lose DNT on 6-6-18) should it be a month, those are simply examples. I just believe it is better for users who want to pardon to have the ability to, and should staff make guidelines to follow for time of extension after being caught so be it. Only reason I wouldn't like this is the fact my offenses were when I was 14 in 2012, i'm nearly 21 now, but that is personal opinion. Hopefully this helps a bit Rubin, support tho.

 

Isn’t there a predetermined van length that they must serve before they can pardon (such as 3 months for scamming?)

 

I like your idea, it would definitely feel like more of a punishment.

What do you think about this: Delay the voting process by a month (or 2-3) instead of 2 weeks. This way, you are still giving them an incentive to repay their debts without actually "banning" them.

EDIT: What I mean is to wait 2-3 months to publish the result. You can close the voting within the current time of 2 weeks, but only publish and remove the DNT after 3 months. This will give users the punishment you are suggesting without actually applying said punishment manually and thus (perhaps) removing the incentive to repay debts.

Hopefully that makes sense.

Let me know what you think, really interested in this topic.

I think that's only when a pardon or dispute has been denied.

 

Ice Queen is correct here, there is no predetermined time atm for a user to pardon, unless they have had a pardon already denied.

 

Read my paragraph response, I think my answer is very reasonable. I don't think delaying voting helps anything, plus I already repaid my debts. Just a quick look if you don't mind

 

Oh yes, I just read it! Your idea is actually much better. I'm glad you did repay your debts!

Support!

 

There's a predetermined ban length if a user has been banned for scamming, however there's no predetermined length which restricts a user from pardoning.

I think Wortel is highlighting the distinction between a user confessing and pardoning from scamming in the past (which would allow a pardon) or being caught for scamming in the past (which wouldn't).

 

What is stopping staff from denying said pardon on the grounds of it being too early/they haven't served an amount of time as DNT that staff feel is acceptable?

 

Okay.. do you think it would pass that if you are given a ban, you must serve that ban length before you pardon? I know the goal right now is to make it easier for people to come back, but to me it only sounds logical

 

Makes sense to me, but to be fair it's extremely unlikely that a user would be able to pardon from a scam which has just taken place. Most users who pardon immediately after being banned are those who are discovered to be evading previous scams, usually 1 year+ old. This leads to...

Nothing, but it's more work for staff to process said pardon and then discuss it. I don't think there are any grounds under which staff should pardon a user who has been discovered to be scamming without them serving the time relevant (as DNT/banned), but someone else might be able to suggest a scenario otherwise.

 

This is generally what is done which is why I think this suggestion is unnecessarily harmful to those pardoning. If staff feel that they haven't "done their time" then just vote no on the pardon. But there are some users whose ban reason is less severe who would benefit from a pardon and quick re-entry to sythe

 

Ye I mentioned this a few days back in discord what’s the incentive to owning up to ban evasion? In most cases you’ll probably be denied on your first pardon attempt or I should hope so. There needs to be a set amount of time users have to wait before being able to pardon if they’re caught ban evading.

 

In light of recent staff turmoil I think guidelines should be set rather than it being at “staff discretion”, this leaves no area for bias or uncertainty.

 

Honestly I didn't read the whole page because I am kinda busy atm but quick reply to:

is:

If users scam, they should be banned for x time in accordance with the lengths we have outlined for dollar amount, even if they are found down the line and it is evasion. Most ppl who get banned it is because of scamming, so this guideline should be followed for most. If its something like blackhat then obviously their pardon would probably get denied anyway if they pardoned right away because if you are caught today hacking, why would we believe they are ready to rejoin the community the next day?

 

it should be the 3 months or whatever til your ban is lifted. I don’t know why you can pardon so early after getting caught evading/scamming.

 

I don't agree or like this idea unless it's only made for actual scamming. A lot of people are banned for stupid reasons or misunderstandings. Are you telling me they ALL have to wait 3 months even if they shouldn't be punished to begin with or have fixed the issue?

Don't staff decide whether or not to let them back? If its something very bad, then tell them to wait 3 months to pardon again like always? Or if it's something minor why make them wait? Maybe should focus on the actual pardon decision making part of the process rather than this. Maybe members need to get 75% of staff votes instead of whatever it is now? It would leave less room for errors when making the decision to allow someone back.

 

This would discourage users from confessing their wrongs if they know for certain they can't pardon subsequent to admission. I say keep it at is. It's pretty much rule of thumb that most first pardons get denied anyway.

 

No support, stop trying to kill the website by removing/ruining it for every person who gets punished or ever does something wrong, people are human and make mistakes, making it harder for them to return is not warranted.

You also fundamentally harm Sythes monetary flow by making pardons more difficult, a vast majority of sythes income comes from ban evaders/other users who have made poor choices.

If we implemented half your suggestions the site wouldn't make it a year, I'm dead serious.

Sythe is not at a stage where you can just mercilessly ban people over and over, the site is no longer large enough to support harsher punishments, I don't know when you'll wake up and get that through your head, the owners have posted threads asking for new donor benefits because the sites already struggling financially, you apparently live in a fantasy land where you can ban whoever you want as often as you want and the site will just keep going.

If sythe was 10x larger and booming I might support this, I live in reality however and am trying to keep the site alive, most of your suggestions will just kill it faster, including this one.

Thanks.

 

This suggestion has been approved.