Make it easier to be DnT & go back into DnT

[Grave]

It's been almost a year since @Sythe unveiled DnT users. These users are essentially banned users who are still allowed to be around the community. I originally support the idea, but I don't know how it's specifically being handled. @Tmoe recently announced a change to allow pardons more easily, which is fine, but some issues are being ignored. It's also important to remember than some of these people are banned because the staff is biased, so being able to pardon earlier doesn't really help their situation.

Here are the main concerns:

1. People seem to still be "banned" easily and there doesn't seem to be a system where the staff forgo banning people rather than move them directly to DnT. There's no easy system for users to become DnT. This needs to be a continuous process, rather than a one-time DnT. One way to do it could be a DnT request form on the "banned" page, that automatically creates a vote for the DnT to be approved by the community.
2. If an unpopular person was banned due to drama, I don't see them easily being pardoned. There needs to be stipulations in place where staff cannot reject a pardon, especially when the "DNT" is non-trade related. So if there's actual scamming going on, sure, staff should be able to deny, but if it's not for that reason, the people of Sythe should be able to weigh in instead. It's unfair for the same jury that banned & hates the person to vote on bringing them back fully to the community, if they were banned for something that's non-trade related.
3. People have got their DnT removed, and are continuing to cause problems rather than be reformed. In these cases, it should be easier to move them back into the DnT group. This is especially true when the majority of the community doesn't support the removal of the DnT or the DnT to be issued in the first place. If a formerly DnT user is causing problems, they should be moved back to the DnT group, either permanently or temporarily. For example, a ban of one week could result in also having DnT for a month.
4. The idea of DnT was that the community needs to be active, and active members that participate & contribute to the community should be able to speak. However, this shouldn't be the case when the person is just ruining the community. There should be methods implemented to remove DnT users from the community, similar to a "votekick." To reduce biases, there should be requirements (for example, 10% of "active" members at any given time must vote (which can be updated monthly), so in this case there's 347 users online right now, so 35 should be required to vote.) People can still re-apply for DnT as mentioned in #1

Feel free to support any portion of this suggestion. Just please note the number (1, 2, 3, or 4) when discussing this suggestion.

 

[Kigis]

Most of these bans and DNT come from new users with no more of 100 post counts. Scamming is a serious case so by banning them. It also removes the problem.

DNT are only harshly given when the users are new.

2. People are unpopular for a reason. I dont go hating people for no reason. For them to join the community, the community has to accept them. Also what I seen through pardoning its not one mod that makes judgement, its most of them.

4. votednt is lame, cant see it going well.


Overall I see where you are coming from. Labelling someone as a scammer puts a very negative way of how people see them so these cases of reports shall be taken carefully

although scamming is disgusting so should be taken strictly so no one folllow another persons actions. people are less likely to copy someones actions if there is a negative consequence

 

[Grave]

I just want to clarify a couple things you stated.

2. People are unpopular for a reason. I dont go hating people for no reason. For them to join the community, the community has to accept them. Also what I seen through pardoning its not one mod that makes judgement, its most of them.

Right, but there's a difference between being wanted by the community and being wanted by the staff. The community is the one interacting with the person the most, so the few (mods) shouldn't trump the opinion of the many. This is important especially because staff have all the power, and sometimes they can go on power trips.

This would just shift the DnT process a little more toward direct democracy, which is exactly how and why it started.

votednt is lame, cant see it going well.

Again, it already did go well. That's how the DnT process started.

 

No support if the community voted on my dnt,
I would have never been one and never passed a pardon,
I rather eat dog shit then support this

 

Support for this grave, interactions with the community should be decided by the community. Sythe will be made great again. God willing.

 

We should also dnt toxic members so they can better integrate into the community first before being let wild. Otherwise no support.

 

We should also dnt toxic members so they can better integrate into the community first before being let wild. Otherwise no support.

What does being a toxic person has to do with trading so that they should be given dnt?

 

[Grave]

No support if the community voted on my dnt,
I would have never been one and never passed a pardon,
I rather eat dog shit then support this

If you received a DnT, chances are it was part of a community effort (myself included) to unban members they wanted back. I'd like to think the moderators/admins that banned someone are less likely to want to grant them a DnT.

(edit) Maybe the solution would be to give people BOTH options for a DnT.

What does being a toxic person has to do with trading so that they should be given dnt?

It doesn't. Sonia's known to be mentally challenged at times.

 

If you received a DnT, chances are it was part of a community effort (myself included) to unban members they wanted back. I'd like to think the moderators/admins that banned someone are less likely to want to grant them a DnT.

(edit) Maybe the solution would be to give people BOTH options for a DnT.



It doesn't. Sonia's known to be mentally challenged at times.

Why not just let the community vote on the person applying for the DNT. This includes everyone's votes (Staff and regular users) .
However, this should only be a 3 day long vote. No longer than that. Must be 60% or great to be given a DNT.

 

[Punjabi3]

Banning undesirable people and denying pardons for these members was much more common in the past, maybe listing recent examples could be beneficial? Perhaps the rules should be re-written instead to be more community oriented and rather than temporarily banning for some offences, a temporary DNT could be given. Very few people supported the DNT and still do so you have to remember this bias is much more prevalent amongst the community than the staff.

However, if the community voting is added, it should be in a much more visible place than it currently is. The community voting could be a factor in the dnt/ pardon process but shouldn't act as a final say.

In addition, staff have a lot more resources available to research bans than regular users do, there are also private reports or sensitive information available in some reports that shouldn't be shared with the community so how would you go about this?

I personally can't see the community having less biased input than staff though. Some biases/ issues I can think of are:
- People such as myself who don't support the DNT, what incentive do I have to not just vote no on every request?
- People who want to keep competition out
- People not taking it seriously and either voting because they liked or don't like someone.
- People ganging up together via personal chats and spam forums to just add DNT to certain people.

 

[Tyler]

Suggestion Section Clean-Up