Looking good, Sythe' staff.

[Kamehameha x10]

This mainly goes for Pen, and Tyro on the subject of PlzNate -

Im appalled at how professionally the staff handled this subject. It shows most of us sythe users that just because you have a fancy title, it doesn't mean your excluded from the forum rules. Tyro, and Pen stuck to there guns on this one; and basically addressed this.

And yes, I do understand that PlzNate contributed to this site; unlike some others that were banned, but it shows us all that rules are rules, and they should be followed. Again, I believe the staff that was involved in this issue; rather if they were against the ban or not, handled it very professionally.

 

[goku usa]

I'm not surprised by this at all. It's great to see mods not getting special treatment like other websites.

 

[Karl]

I'm not surprised by this at all. It's great to see mods not getting special treatment like other websites.

He wasn't mod.

 

[Rohail]

I totally agree with this. I don't think specific users should get any special treatment at all if they are freinds with the staff or have contirbuted to the site. Rules are Rules.

 

[Fedora]

True. He was banned for self-vouching, right? With all the legit vouches that he had...

 

[Kamehameha x10]

True. He was banned for self-vouching, right?

This is correct.

 

[Necromancer24]

^ Correct.

If he came forwards himself, he should've been given another chance. But no matter who you are, if you do wrong, you should be banned.

 

[Tgump]

This mainly goes for Pen, and Tyro on the subject of PlzNate -

Im appalled at how professionally the staff handled this subject. It shows most of us sythe users that just because you have a fancy title, it doesn't mean your excluded from the forum rules. Tyro, and Pen stuck to there guns on this one; and basically addressed this.

appalledpast participle, past tense of ap·pall
Verb: Greatly dismay or horrify: "bankers are appalled at the economic incompetence of some officials".

 

[SuF]

^ Correct.

If he came forwards himself, he should've been given another chance. But no matter who you are, if you do wrong, you should be banned.

If he wasn't banned if he came forward himself he would be getting special treatment he doesn't deserve.

 

[Kamehameha x10]

appalledpast participle, past tense of ap·pall
Verb: Greatly dismay or horrify: "bankers are appalled at the economic incompetence of some officials".

I am appalled, because I did not believe that the staff that was involved in this subject would have chosen the decision that they have.

 

This is easy to say after the decicion has been made.
Nate does not deserve this after all he's done for the community.

He has made some mistakes, he admits that.
As a leecher he should have been banned.

As a contributor to the community of sythe, like he was now.
NO he should not. loss of ranks, Temp ban at most. this is ridiculous.

This is my opinion.

 

[Jimmy]

I am appalled, because I did not believe that the staff that was involved in this subject would have chosen the decision that they have.

Appalled isn't the right word to use in that context. Perhaps surprised?

 

[Kamehameha x10]

Appalled isn't the right word to use in that context. Perhaps surprised?

I thought Appalled = Shocked/surprised.

 

[Deacon Frost]

^ Correct.

If he came forwards himself, he should've been given another chance. But no matter who you are, if you do wrong, you should be banned.

Partially incorrect. The thing is, if his fake vouch had been discovered before all the contributions he made, he would have been banned like any other member and not given a second thought. Even if he had come forward.

The fake vouch occurred before his contributions, not afterwards, while I can see why some may see this as forgivable, you have to think of the order in which the events occurred. If it had occurred after he contributed, it would have been accepted as just a stupid thing, and forgiven. Since it was done before, one has to question his motives, and every contribution he's made up until this point.

I don't have anything against him, the few times I've talked to him, I've never sensed a scammer, but his actions are truly repulsive, and I can't help but second guess my own opinion of him.

If he wasn't banned if he came forward himself he would be getting special treatment he doesn't deserve.

You seem to have a vendetta that is quite misplaced. Speaking from personal opinion, no case is the same as another. I've been unbanned after posting porn, ban evading, breaking the forums, and many other things. In all honesty, it's about sincerity, and showing that you were truly apologetic for your actions and willing to make whatever changes necessary to remain a member.

If any member can be banned for any unconscionable act, then they should unbanned for showing that they have a conscious and honestly regret their actions. That's why there's a dispute forum, it's not just because there's certain cases where the staff make mistakes (though few and far between), but to allow members to show remorse and to try and fix whatever damage they have wrought.

 

[Rsaccounttrader]

I thought Appalled = Shocked/surprised.

Nope, I was going to post the same thing. Appalled is what it was defined by gump as.

 

[The Legit Shop]

From all his contributions I think he should be unbanned.

 

[Transfer]

From all his contributions I think he should be unbanned.

Agreed.
Anyhow, let's get past this?
What is done is done.
If the staff decides to look past his foolish mistakes then they will unban him.

 

[Greg]

once you let one person by others will beg for the same treatment, and if you judge it by amount given to the community how do you measure that and where do you draw the line after that. Either a firm permenent ban or a 3 month temp ban must remain constant for all users no matter who you are, and say if you were to change the ban time how could you repay those who have been permed for the same reasons?

 

[Transfer]

once you let one person by others will beg for the same treatment, and if you judge it by amount given to the community how do you measure that and where do you draw the line after that. Either a firm permenent ban or a 3 month temp ban must remain constant for all users no matter who you are, and say if you were to change the ban time how could you repay those who have been permed for the same reasons?

Yeah, give the treatment to all or none.
If you were to reverse this rule, if anyone who has been banned for self-vouching beforehand can just post a dispute.
The staff can look into the matter & unban the member.

 

[The Legit Shop]

once you let one person by others will beg for the same treatment, and if you judge it by amount given to the community how do you measure that and where do you draw the line after that. Either a firm permenent ban or a 3 month temp ban must remain constant for all users no matter who you are, and say if you were to change the ban time how could you repay those who have been permed for the same reasons?

if others have contributed as much as he has and committed a minor offense (imo) and if most of the community forgives him when it did not harm/hurt/affect anyone then they can (should) reconsider.