[DENIED] Actually BAN, ban evaders

[Poat]

As the current system is it seems like ban evaders are simply slapped with a DNT instead of facing punishment for their actions in the form of a ban, some users can ban evade for a elongated time building trust without serving their time.

example, a User may be banned for 3 months then given a DNT but if a user makes a new account say 1 month later they still have 2 Months worth of punishment left on their ban. This user should be banned for at least 2 months and possible longer for their ban evasion.

As it is now once you are caught you just get slapped with a DNT, and after re-reading the reasoning behind the DNT rank i believe that if someone wants to evade their punishment instead of accepting it that should be punished accordingly.

I am open to genuine suggestions on why this shouldn't be looked at when applying DNTs to vaders.

 

I've noticed that as well. Sometimes their accounts are banned, sometimes DNT. Not sure if different mods do different things, but I've never understood that. If someone is avoiding their DNT, they most definitely should be banned and their pardon on their original Sythe account should extend. I do get that DNT means they can't use the market but if some are banned and some aren't (vaders), that is what I'm supporting.

 

Support ,

Poat is a smart guy and I'm sure whatever he typed made a lot of sense and is a really good idea for the community


DEATH TO DNT

 

[Oh Jesus]

So you're stating that if a ban evader creates a ban evading account after their ban period is complete that it's fine and dandy?

 

[Superfluous]

I feel like the reasons why DNTs are issued are discussed pretty well here Understanding the DNT (Do Not Trade) rank

 

Support.
IMO A user should only have one account. I'd assume its stated in the rules somewhere that you can't have multiple accounts but if you are allowed to have multiple accounts I think thats very flawed.

 

[Poat]

I feel like the reasons why DNTs are issued are discussed pretty well here Understanding the DNT (Do Not Trade) rank

Im mainly referring to this point in that thread for this post,

Once punishment (ban period) for an offence has been served it is finalized and the punishment is complete.

users who skip this step should be facing more than a DNT is what this post is about. As well as face additional punishment for trading via Sythe with a banned/DNTed account.

So you're stating that if a ban evader creates a ban evading account after their ban period is complete that it's fine and dandy?

Quote the opposite since those users are also making new accounts to trade with a DNT in that case they should be punished accordingly, attempting or trading with a dnt 50+ times via sythe (aka gaining 50 vouches on your DNT evading account) should be a much harsher punishment than simply being hit with a DNT. If that was your point i completely agree.

 

No support they will just make another account anyways. At least with the way it currently is they may at least think about paying their debts

 

[Poat]

No support they will just make another account anyways. At least with the way it currently is they may at least think about paying their debts

If they were thinking about paying their debts they woulda done it on their first account , now ban evaders are able to build trust on their vader's then once they get caught simply pardon and keep the trust they built on that account. Personally i think ban evaders should also be forced to pardon on their original account and all vouches they gained on their ban evader account thrown out, but that's a problem for another time.

 

RE:

While I get where @Poat is coming from, I'm actually in favor of this. Though, I get that cases where the DNT was self requested is gonna be complicated and probably people will be banned in error from the server. However, while I agree to an extent that a DNT shouldn't be a punishment, I don't think we should sugar coat them either. The majority of DNT users are in debts and I'm getting under the impression that those users were previously already active in the Spam Forum, therefore being granted back to the community without any repercussions isn't exactly the worst that could happen to them.

Support. Originally the DNT should only be awarded to users who weren't DNT before. I've made a thread somewhere in staff section regarding proper ban punishments.

I used to permban them if they ban evaded over and over again. I've DNT + temp-banned them when they have ban evaded like once or twice before. And I'd DNT them if they never ban evaded before, or were last active a year+ before.

 

Support, makes perfect sense. It does seem like vading is just a way to attempt to wipe your own slate clean. Worst case scenario you get caught and DNT’d then eventually pardon. In the meantime you build trust and potentially profit without having served your initial punishment. Doesn’t seem fair

 

[Poat]

I used to permban them if they ban evaded over and over again. I've DNT + temp-banned them when they have ban evaded like once or twice before. And I'd DNT them if they never ban evaded before, or were last active a year+ before.

While this seems like a very good solution im going to use this report as a perfect example Mukla this user made his account 2-3 weeks after his previous account was banned but only received a DNT. So although you made it, it seems people are not following through with this and the rule should be more strictly enforced, it took me 2 minutes to find the day he scammed and the date of his account creation to figure out the time of his ban compared to his new account.

 

[Gladiator]

I used to permban them if they ban evaded over and over again. I've DNT + temp-banned them when they have ban evaded like once or twice before. And I'd DNT them if they never ban evaded before, or were last active a year+ before.

This is the rule staff follow, if they ban evade the first and only time, we DNT them and ask them to request a pardon/to clear their previous debts. Simply banning users on sight isn't retrieving funds for the victims that have been scammed, it's important to give people at least one chance to rectify their mistakes.

While this seems like a very good solution im going to use this report as a perfect example Mukla this user made his account 2-3 weeks after his previous account was banned but only received a DNT. So although you made it, it seems people are not following through with this and the rule should be more strictly enforced, it took me 2 minutes to find the day he scammed and the date of his account creation to figure out the time of his ban compared to his new account.

The example you linked of mine shows that this was his FIRST time ban evading and not "ban evaded over and over again" like Wortel says. This is what Staff have always been told, to DNT + link pardon section for first ban evasions. Any subsequent ban evasions will result in a permanent ban. There may be confusion with this report because ABM says "+ others", however there were no others. I always double check the ban reason and it was just that single account.

Hope this clarifies it for you.

 

Think of ban evaders as bullies in school, once one is gone another comes along rinse and repeat.

And the problem is, unless you're going to force people to use middlemen and such then they are going to continue coming back like flies around a pile of dog shit. It's truly a shame, because they take advantage of good people, good people who just want to buy and sell and trade their items or currencies with other fellow kind hearted members.

 

Think of ban evaders as bullies in school, once one is gone another comes along rinse and repeat.

And the problem is, unless you're going to force people to use middlemen and such then they are going to continue coming back like flies around a pile of dog shit. It's truly a shame, because they take advantage of good people, good people who just want to buy and sell and trade their items or currencies with other fellow kind hearted members.

If this is the mindset we're having then yes, having them DNT'ed might increase their chances of pardoning them, but if the total image of ban evaders/DNT users does not change (which is proven, there's still alot of DNT evaders), we might aswell permban them for better documentation. I've seen too many profile posts on DNT'ed users profile who are asking for their services still.

 

[video]

We will not be implementing perm bans but repeat evaders will have their sentences extended