Yeah, a bit behind here.

Many young members do it just so that they can be trusted enough to have people trade with them. They do not understand the severity of what they are doing.

 

I support your idea. Plznate was a great friend of mine, but I still voted to keep it a perm ban. High Pardon can handle the rare instances such as Nate's ban.

 

If the rule was solely removed due to plznate, then it should be reversed.

 

Sadly, that's pretty much it. I don't see why the permanent ban can just be the primary rule, but can be voted on if the person is a truly outstanding member of the community?

 

No they don't. A lot of self vouchers are actually ban evaders.

 

I don't get it though. If your trading with someone and they have a low amount of vouches like 5 (all 5 faked) you can just take the minute to click the links to those vouches while your waiting on the trade.

 

I don't think the problem is catching these kind of vouches -

The problem is, when people make several new accounts and vouch themselves. These vouches are 'legit' in the sense they can be redirected, but are 'fake' as they are self vouched.

 

Does anyone remember this thread?
http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=910516

I will say this once again..

However, the popular vote was the reason for the change:

So in short, unless there is going to be another vote, I'm sorry to say I don't understand why this is being debated not even 3-weeks later.

 

In all honesty, a majority was never reached. Sure, there was a 42% saying that it should be three months, but that's still not a majority. Why Sythe blended that 42% with the other 20% who voted that it should be lessoned, but not with an alternative to three months.

 

As I stated earlier in the thread, the democratic process should be invalid on Sythe.org since a large portion of members don't have the site's best interest at heart - rather, their own interests conflict directly with the site's interests. The vote was actually fairly close, considering.

Also, another user brought up the potential bias in the poll due to Plznate's recent ban.

Thus, the vote was flawed. What matters is therefore the logic behind changing the rules, which, as I argue, is poor. (As for why I'm three weeks late, it's because I haven't really read the forums in three weeks.)

 

I hate that the whole thing happened because of plznate. He doesn't deserve any special recognition over other people. Sure he was a great part of the community but changing the rules just to keep him here is really pushing the limits in my opinion.

 

I have no clue how they got 65% out of that poll, the 2 sides which dont want perm bans are split.

Anyways we should have a full re-vote, and each voter be checked for evasion + self vouching and then we'll see the real results.

 

I totally agree. I wonder what the actual vote would be if it was real legit members voting.

 

No poll either, manual voting by posting on the thread, and posts cannot be edited or they are thrown out.

 

Just a suggestion, in future, maybe we can have such polls done in the donator lounge.