[Denied] Stop advertising banned users.

Shadow Neko admitting to Doxing
^1 month temp ban resulted into vading + doxing
[Shadow Neko] Pardon for self-req ban report on ban evading

Could easily result into scamming too thats why temp bans are not any better as dnt / perm bans cus you dont know how ppls will react.

 

[JayyKush]

Support, and also agree with Bert

I somewhat support this, but at the same time I think there should be a temporary ban custom rank that you can click on to see the reasoning behind the ban, just like you would on the TWC custom rank.

 

No support, your affectively asking people to breach a advertisement agreement they've made; if your talking about spacegems i assume there was a contract of advertisement that the staff/members advertising have to adhere to.
I think if the ban was perm ofc they would remove it; as I am sure you're NOT allowed to advertise for permanently banned users.

 

[Superfluous]

I signed an advertising agreement with Spacegems some time ago, so obviously take this post with a grain of salt if such things trigger you.

Spacegems traded gold in someone else's server while running his own threads (see here), and we have gotten much stricter about this type of activity recently compared to the past. As far as naughty behavior goes on Sythe, this is pretty minor imo; it's basically double-dipping. Spacegems is not banned for scamming or for anything else that should make a Sythe user concerned about trading with them imo.

If a scam were to occur, a DNT would be issued, and all advertising would have to stop. As is, and as has been mentioned, advertising for permanently banned/DNT'd users is not allowed, but advertising for a temporarily banned user is acceptable. I don't see a reason to change the current system.

 

More stupid than berating people online without providing your reasoning?

I’ve said some pretty fucking stupid things, much more-so than this

average Sythe user iq is 5, so calling is stupid us redundant, it's like bullying the special needs kid, but all jokes a side, if your going to argue a point, explain why justifying is stupid thing?

Hey sorry guys I was busy that day and like speed read through the comments. I didn’t mean what I said please do not take offense. I have eaten a snickers and removed the comment.

Nevertheless, I do not want this suggestion to focus on one person. Although Spacegems is the reason I made the suggestion I do not think he is a bad person and have had dealings with him in the past. Being said however, this suggestion should be looked at on the basis for security as I gave in the first example.

I get that some reasons are worse than others and one thing is considered worse than another. Regardless, one thing can lead to another like a chain reaction.

 

I signed an advertising agreement with Spacegems some time ago, so obviously take this post with a grain of salt if such things trigger you.

Spacegems traded gold in someone else's server while running his own threads (see here), and we have gotten much stricter about this type of activity recently compared to the past. As far as naughty behavior goes on Sythe, this is pretty minor imo; it's basically double-dipping. Spacegems is not banned for scamming or for anything else that should make a Sythe user concerned about trading with them imo.

If a scam were to occur, a DNT would be issued, and all advertising would have to stop. As is, and as has been mentioned, advertising for permanently banned/DNT'd users is not allowed, but advertising for a temporarily banned user is acceptable. I don't see a reason to change the current system.

As I mentioned in the post above this one. It’s more about one thing leading to another.

I’m not saying all people are bad at all. But one thing again can lead one to react. I think we give too much leeway on the site and liberty to rule breakers which would allow them to break away with a small fortune.

 

Hey sorry guys I was busy that day and like speed read through the comments. I didn’t mean what I said please do not take offense. I have eaten a snickers and removed the comment.

Nevertheless, I do not want this suggestion to focus on one person. Although Spacegems is the reason I made the suggestion I do not think he is a bad person and have had dealings with him in the past. Being said however, this suggestion should be looked at on the basis for security as I gave in the first example.

I get that some reasons are worse than others and one thing is considered worse than another. Regardless, one thing can lead to another like a chain reaction.

YOU HURT MY FEELINGS

Nah, all good man. I appreciate it, no offense taken.

 

Maybe a good middle ground is to allow the advertisers the choice to keep the money and remove the banner if they chose

 

Maybe a good middle ground is to allow the advertisers the choice to keep the money and remove the banner if they chose

I mean that part should be built into TOS's when agreeing to advertising anyways, no?
Most TOS I would assume state that if banned/dnt'd that you'd have the right to remove the ad.
I suppose it could be made a rule, as to ensure that this is always the case though.

At the end of the day, this suggestion is well intentioned, but impractical. Maybe if the ban system itself were completely overhauled, and instead of temp bans there was another role between TWC and DNT that had the role a temp ban has now. Regardless, as it stands, it would need to be judged on a case-by-case basis, and thus just makes more sense to leave it up to the discretion of the advertiser to decide if he wants to keep up the ad for the individual/company.

Business ethics 101 right here.

 

I mean that part should be built into TOS's when agreeing to advertising anyways, no?
Most TOS I would assume state that if banned/dnt'd that you'd have the right to remove the ad.
I suppose it could be made a rule, as to ensure that this is always the case though.

At the end of the day, this suggestion is well intentioned, but impractical. Maybe if the ban system itself were completely overhauled, and instead of temp bans there was another role between TWC and DNT that had the role a temp ban has now. Regardless, as it stands, it would need to be judged on a case-by-case basis, and thus just makes more sense to leave it up to the discretion of the advertiser to decide if he wants to keep up the ad for the individual/company.

Business ethics 101 right here.

yeah I'd assume at this time it would have to to be covered in the tos in the current rules

 

Personally I think that there is a difference between a scam related ban and a ban due to "behavior" for lack of a better word.

I think if the ban is related to scam then it is no question that the advertisement should be removed and the fee forfeited.
If it is a ban where the reasoning does not pose a market risk then I think it does make sense to have an in-between rank as suggested by others that discloses this and to not remove the advertisement

 

Removal of a banned user's advertisements/banners is handled on a case-by-case basis.

If the user has not scammed and the content of the advertisement is not a scam itself we generally allow the advertisement to finish its cycle before taking it down. Additionally, the banned user(s) are not able to renew these advertisements until their account is in good standing.