Better validation on old reports

So I can imagine my title of my thread doesn't completely make sense so let me go a bit further into it.

I have been thinking about it for quite some time now, and i'm not talking a day or a week but instead the past 4 months.

Whilst i understand there are repeat offenders, I also see that many people including myself get punished for old disputes or mixed disputes and such that should no longer be valid due to the amount of time

Now I would like to quote @Gen -

I appreciate the fact he stepped in and did the right thing, the same applies with people like @Vallance who although yes broke a rule (and has finally been pardoned, welcome back brother) he was having this held above his head for whatever reason to seemingly keep DNT.

As far as i'm aware and please correct me if i'm wrong, both examples were before the rule changes on how things are (I mean they could have been the same and just others edited) but when you have already had things handled for whatever reason I do feel it isn't fair on anyone that you should be held liable for stuff still - An example is my dox ban last November, it was handled 3 years ago by @Ex , maybe not handled the way you would now but it was handled how he felt appropriate - And with that being said I was also banned for a year on OSBot then welcomed back and became one of their biggest traders (#7 position) and yet this was still allowed to be used against me.

I am picking at this because I do not want to sound like I am making it all about myself, as that would be placed in feedback not suggestions, but I do feel that his should be looked more into or at least appropriately taken into consideration as two examples above were handled differently to what the ruling apparently is (and I admit I was possibly over reacting too)

- So disclosure of people related to the staff in one way shape or form is a 6 month ban and a DNT that needs to be pardoned for, can we keep in mind both myself and Val in both examples didn't say anything out in public to my knowing (at least I know I didn't, not sure on him and that's why I said I potentially over reacted, as idk cant remember exacts) which would mean this isn't actually completely justified.

What you claim is leaking of stuff isn't, and I would like to say also that if the person has already leaked all their own information which could be open to anyone (this could be like me posting pictures of myself in Sythes discord server) cant really be used as a dox attempt/confirmation, in order to dox you need to release the stuff not keep it to yourself.

- all in all, I feel this ruling should be looked better into, and maybe worked/worded a bit better, as it would seem that if someone is claiming they will dox someone or such sure I understand that, but if you're calling someone privately by their personal name or so on, that isn't really the same.

Maybe we could get a update on this rule, or a few related to the forum ban related stuff? I have seen previously that people wanted to poll such things in similar ways like linking to why you're banned and such, as all bans remain the same look.

 

I feel like I’ve kind of made a mess of this, but please if you do read this guys remember you can’t paint everyone with the same brush.

The amount of people I had to explain that I’m not a scammer to was just stupid, and then people like @JerryCS giving me abuse for invalid reports too is just unjustified.

There should be a perfect like between all of the differences.

 

I believe it has already changed since this, but when staff have stated things that cannot be used are still used in such things to have people reported/banned, that's sort of a slap in the face.

I would go more into it, but as I say I believe it was resolved since this post.