Dispute Forum rule #2

[Cfrey]

2. You must dispute your ban/infraction within one month it was given. After one month, the ban/infraction will not be reversed, and the dispute will be denied.


Seems like the rule should be rewritten as it has quite a bit of complications for the users. The main purpose of the rule was so that if someone disputed a ban 6 months later a mod wouldn't have trouble finding out why someone was banned, and what exactly went on. That's somewhat fine and dandy, but for people that have been trying to dispute bans for over and over that period of time it kinda sucks. Users that have been away for awhile and end up banned they have no chance (some will try to help but a lot I've seen someone just copy paste and lock). Another thing I have seen are people disputing their bans and not getting a response. After waiting patiently they post another a month or so later and getting that copy paste and lock.

Any opinions?

 

[Benwise]

Honestly, I rarely see people follow this rule...

Occasionally, yes, but the majority of the time we go ahead and find the reason, do a bit of research, etc.

 

[I Pain I]

I support.

It seems odd a person wanting to dispute an account that has been banned four months earlier. Just a bit strange.

 

[Cfrey]

Honestly, I rarely see people follow this rule...

Occasionally, yes, but the majority of the time we go ahead and find the reason, do a bit of research, etc.

I went through a few disputes earlier today and saw this used in a lock reason. I do think though every staff member should be on the same terms with each other. Whether they lock a thread for it, or actually find out what happened and potentially get them unbanned. Going back and forth isn't very fair for the users.

 

[Deacon Frost]

Honestly, the biggest problem with this rule is that people who don't get quick answers and/or people who don't give straight forward answers, usually end up having to wait.

And they wait.

And they wait.

And they wait.

And then they're told they waited too long.

Ben did say it's rarely followed, but I always see it being quoted. So, I could see a few exceptions being added to it, or a rewording maybe.

Edit: It helps to be popular like myself was. And make it so everyone knows everything about your ban at all times. They won't refuse you then . loljkjk

 

[Sin666]

2. You must dispute your ban/infraction within one month it was given. After one month, the ban/infraction will not be reversed, and the dispute will be denied.


Seems like the rule should be rewritten as it has quite a bit of complications for the users. The main purpose of the rule was so that if someone disputed a ban 6 months later a mod wouldn't have trouble finding out why someone was banned, and what exactly went on. That's somewhat fine and dandy, but for people that have been trying to dispute bans for over and over that period of time it kinda sucks. Users that have been away for awhile and end up banned they have no chance (some will try to help but a lot I've seen someone just copy paste and lock). Another thing I have seen are people disputing their bans and not getting a response. After waiting patiently they post another a month or so later and getting that copy paste and lock.

Any opinions?

A user is excused from the rule if they have tried and failed to get a response during the one month time period. Moreover, the rule is weakly enforced: it's usually only brought up when the mods genuinely don't have enough information on the ban to be able to answer it, or when they think the user is only trying to take advantage of hazy memories and retired mods.

As for the threads with no replies: it is generally considered a mod's responsibility to answer the bans that they themselves issued. Ban records are better kept then they were when you were on staff, but they're still imperfect. Some mods just don't check the forum enough; others don't recognize some of the usernames as being their bans (especially with delayed disputes), etc.

 

[Cfrey]

Yes, but there are some circumstances in which the rule doesn't apply. Which then gets all clustered into what is allowed and what isn't.

 

[I3laze]

I agree partially, mainly because the rule depends on the circumstances, Like Sin said, But also if it was a small ban, and they dispute after 1 month of having say 1 week ban, It may bring curiousity up to Why all of a sudden has he/she decided to appeal now? I would personally think they are appealing that late to get ex-vouches back, and perhaps scam, so I don't know how my opinion may be perceived in this.

 

[OldFinn]

This rule exists for a number of reasons. For example, Sin's departure evoked a number of disputes from members that she'd banned many months beforehand. Some of these disputes garnered support from certain staff members, but, the fact is, they didn't really understand the situations, as they had not dealt with them - Sin had done so, many months beforehand. After a number of months, recovering proofs that support a ban is also particularly difficult. In a nutshell, trying to dispute a ban that is over a month old tends to be an opportunistic plea; the dispute being made in due concurrence with the departure of the staff member that banned them. A month is a sufficient amount of time for someone to dispute their ban.

 

[Maleficent]

It also isn't fair to members who got banned and never posted a dispute because they simply couldn't. Also mods or at least some i won't point out anyone that ive seen. They lock threads for no reason and some mods just cruise on past some disputes because they simply don't wanna do the research. If you get banned and your not popular or known on sythe odds is you won't be unbanned for a while because some mods don't know the situation and won't bother to find out because it's too much work for 1 person. Disputes should be treated very carefully if a person got banned but tries to dispute 4-6 months later at least give them a fair trial.

Edit: I'm also not a big fan of sin666 having a general say on almost everything. Fine sin may have been one of the best admins sythe has ever seen but some mods simply have to make the call instead of looking for someone else for an answer and base their answer off that answer. 90% of the banned users will stay banned if all disputes or most are handled this way. People making disputes after sin has been de modded i can understand their dispute being dismissed however

 

[Sin666]

Edit: I'm also not a big fan of sin666 having a general say on almost everything. Fine sin may have been one of the best admins sythe has ever seen but some mods simply have to make the call instead of looking for someone else for an answer and base their answer off that answer. 90% of the banned users will stay banned if all disputes or most are handled this way. People making disputes after sin has been de modded i can understand their dispute being dismissed however

It's not that they require my opinion at all; Dorianking's ban was recently reversed, even though I was (and am) quite publicly against it. In fact, mods often disagree with me. What they mean is simply that if they don't have all the details on a ban, they at least trust that I had some justifiable reason to have issued it. It has little to do with me in particular: the staff often supports each others decisions. If they didn't, and were instead always contradicting one-another, the system would be extremely weak.

 

[Skele]

It also isn't fair to members who got banned and never posted a dispute because they simply couldn't. Also mods or at least some i won't point out anyone that ive seen. They lock threads for no reason and some mods just cruise on past some disputes because they simply don't wanna do the research. If you get banned and your not popular or known on sythe odds is you won't be unbanned for a while because some mods don't know the situation and won't bother to find out because it's too much work for 1 person. Disputes should be treated very carefully if a person got banned but tries to dispute 4-6 months later at least give them a fair trial.

Edit: I'm also not a big fan of sin666 having a general say on almost everything. Fine sin may have been one of the best admins sythe has ever seen but some mods simply have to make the call instead of looking for someone else for an answer and base their answer off that answer. 90% of the banned users will stay banned if all disputes or most are handled this way. People making disputes after sin has been de modded i can understand their dispute being dismissed however

Why would you honestly wait for more than a month before making a dispute? Sure you might not be on all the time, but if I got banned I would probably take a few days at most to think about what I'm going to say. The only reason you would wait so long is to have a better chance at getting unbanned due to not enough details about the ban or the mod who issued it left.

As it was said in the thread as long as you make your dispute before the month is up, then your fine. It's not like we can just ignore your dispute for a month and archive it.

Also Sin has a lot of experience and is extremely intelligent. Her reply on this thread was answered the question and explains why the rule is enforced in the first place. Why you would not want her say is beyond me.