Since when is...

http://sythe.org/showthread.php?p=5179494#post5179494

etc, etc.

 

I thought he was banned for pissing people off? >_>. I don't care either way... Lol.

 

It doesn't matter what he was banned for, he ban evaded countless times..that should be enough for a perm >.>

 

As stated, it is. However, Deacon was banned for something that really shouldn't have been banned in the first place. Therefore, voiding the rule completely.

He never sucked up to the Mods to get unbanned. He went through a poll and was successful, and is unbanned. He can still be banned, but it's not something he's really worrying about as of yet.

I've got a brain, but I'm not a Mod friend with Deacon. Sweet. I can post.

Nope. Because your rant is getting absolutely nowhere it seems.

 

He was still banned, and should of gone through the dispute process like any other person. I don't see why the rules should suddenly change.

Ill see to it that its carried out.

No, you can't.

Shoo fly, don't bother me.

 

I would just let it go. Others who ban evaded before have been unbanned.

Eric, Atomic, etc. etc. (I could probably make a pretty big list )

 

He obviously did go through the dispute process. DUH.
http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=652177

*EDIT*
And after this dispute, it was escalated to a poll, in which, he was unbanned.

Good luck with that.

Who made you judge?

Well, if you knew what you were talking about, maybe I wouldn't.

 

atomic is rebanned, as far as i know?

And to unbanned, he evaded way before that dispute was made.

 

OMFG. DUH.

It's quite obvious he ban evaded before that, but it was for a ban that really wasn't deserved, which is why it went to a poll, and he's unbanned.

For your lack of being able to read, I'm done arguing with you, because it's getting absolutely nowhere.

 

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (4 members and 1 guests)
psycho?, Deacon Frost, unb4nn3d

Seems different to me.

 

About time.

I like deacon, but just don't see why the rules should be bent.

 

Why were the rules bent to ban me?

E: Let me revise this, because it doesn't matter.

Point is, I disputed, they knew of all my actions in the past, they decided "Yes, he can be unbanned". It was their vote (you know, the people who wrote the rules? The ones who can do as they please) to unban me. They decided that I can be unbanned. If the rules can be bent to ban people, they can be bent to unban them, because they made the rules.

A general consensus was reached, and agreed upon by people who make, and enforce these rules.

 

Not going to lie, i have no idea why you were banned. The part that im arguing is that you shouldn't of ban evaded, and then be unbanned about it.

Even if your disputes were denied, then i guess you could of "asked your people" to unban you, eh?

 

No one has any idea why I was banned . But you're not using logic in your reasoning . I shouldn't have HAD to ban evade. That's the whole point. If there's no reason, or point to my ban, then the actions thereafter are voided.

Even so, it was a vote. A vote that included the fact that I did ban evade, and they logically voted their opinion. I fail to see how this is hard to understand?

Let's put it this way:

Let's say a man is convicted of Murder. He is sent to prison with several life sentences. He breaks out of prison, several times. After a while, an appeal of his is heard, and after reviewing the evidence, the man is found innocent.

No law, anywhere (you can try and dispute this, I've seen cases of it), will require that man to remain in prison, as it was the fault of the justice system in the first place .

 

Well, To sum this all up of what i have read through this thread. Deacon Got banned Correct? He Ban EVADED, Correct? He was found Innocent Later, but yet either way he still Ban Evaded. I'm not here to argue, i'm just here to solve this all up before it turns into a mess.

 

You could say I ban evaded, or you could say I "wrongly-convicted evaded" .

Anyways, it's already a mess. Just read my murder analogy. If you don't get that, plz dc ur internet.

 

I think an impartial voice is needed.

Many people have been banned for questionable reasons, and have ban evaded during the time they were banned. This action means that they have ban evaded. This constitutes a permanent ban, as dictated by the Official Sythe.org rules. Whilst the original ban may not have been justified, their action in ban evading warrants the permanent ban.

Now, specifically, in Deacon's case, he shouldn't have been unbanned. 'Votes' to unban people who were banned months earlier were recently frowned upon by Administrators, as staff change over time, and the newer staff, who are voting on the aforementioned polls, are either voting in a biased way due to their allegiance to the person being voted on, or are voting in ignorance; not knowing why the person was initially banned.

As far as I recall, Matthew was involved greatly in Deacon's banning. If you hadn't asked his permission before rebanning him, I recommend you retrace your steps and do so.

If Matthew decides to give the unban a go-ahead, Atomic's ban and whoever else's are liable for reassessment and revoting, in the same way as is Deacon's.

 

Ohai FInn .

Matthew didn't know why I was banned, that's the whole point. There was no official reasoning, there was no understanding, etc. It's not that I was banned for "questionable reasons" it's that I was banned for literally, No reason.

And, just because ex-staff frowned largely upon it, the fact that they are ex-staff is what is important to recognize . There's new staff now, and they run the show, including how things should happen.

Also, my case wouldn't even be heard prior to this because of a staff member who disliked me. Why can't it work the other way around?

Matthew has already Ok'd this, as has Sythe. Neither knew why I was banned, so it was approved.

If their ban's are questionable, yes, I agree. Atomic, however, blatantly broke the rules. Though I trust/support Atomic, he did do a phishing attempt, and lost a lot of trust.

I was simply... banned =/.

 

This is just my input, but if Deacon was not supposed to be banned, and then he ban evaded, but did no harm while evading whatsoever. Then I believe he should be left alone as he just wanted to be back to the community that he should of never had to ban evade to get back to.

Makes sense? Again, just my thoughts.

 

You're talking about permanently banning someone from the forums simply because they didn't want to leave the community - even if they were supposed to. The rule against ban evasion primarily exists to give temp/perm bans an enforceable weight, and to keep scammers from returning freely. While I agree that it is an important rule to have, and further agree that the harsh consequences are necessary, I also believe that the rule should allow for exceptions.

There are many forms of bans, and we cannot possibly spell out what happens to evaders under each and every possible circumstance. If the rule were to be followed precisely, I should further have both Cfrey and Jesse banned for evading troll account bans. Nor do I think the exception should apply only to staff - I have offered the same opportunity to people who I do not know; if I believe the person is genuinely repentant for evading a temp ban, I make them fully re-serve the time owed, add a penalty ban if necessary, and if they abide by it without evading again, I generally give them another chance. The goal of this site is not to ban as many people as possible.

Deacon is not a scammer. He was banned for causing drama, and although he certainly should not have evaded, he has served over 6 months of his ban for something relatively minor. I do not think giving him another chance is a scandalous offer.

Atomic was a different issue. He was banned for phishing, and I rebanned him when I found evidence to support an old rumor I'd heard about him hacking Cheeter and scamming before giving the password to Sigex. (Namely, his home IP on Cheeter's Sythe account, which had no valid reason to be there, and which he could offer no explanation for.)