Make the community a better place...

[FloydZeppelin]

In regard to Splitter's case, it seems a bit unfair as he blatantly stated that it was years ago when he committed the offense (This has been seen in some staff members history - I can name 2 off of the top of my head). But how do bans like this really get looked at? Are they actually reviewed or taken into consideration by the staff? Or is the verdict whatever Skele_Master posts a few hours later?

Who's to say that someone can't change. When you were young, you can't tell me that you didn't see a candy bar on the shelf and have the potential mindset to take it. But now that we've grown up, the 96 cents doesn't seem like that much to pay.

In the legal system (Depending on the state) a minor is deemed incapable of making their own as it could very well be easily influenced, or for that matter just stupidity. That's why the juvenile system was created to give kids a second chance instead of shipping them off to some penitentiary. What good comes from not giving people a second chance? They either turn out better than they were before, or complete monsters. As for Sythe, if the will is good enough, they'll come back regardless of their ban (Whether it be to scam or to be a productive member).

Now obviously, all bans can't be looked at, and I understand this. But when the person has the firm sense of innocence that they would make a dispute, it should be reviewed (More than a simple post of "Its againzt rules sry bye"). If someone has scammed, and there is conclusive evidence against them, by all means - Ban them. But if someone, such as Splitter, was permed for MENTIONING phishing, then I think it's time to reevaluate our standards and rules because in my opinion, something like that doesn't warrant a perm ban.

 

In regard to Splitter's case, it seems a bit unfair as he blatantly stated that it was years ago when he committed the offense (This has been seen in some staff members history - I can name 2 off of the top of my head). But how do bans like this really get looked at? Are they actually reviewed or taken into consideration by the staff? Or is the verdict whatever Skele_Master posts a few hours later?

Who's to say that someone can't change. When you were young, you can't tell me that you didn't see a candy bar on the shelf and have the potential mindset to take it. But now that we've grown up, the 96 cents doesn't seem like that much to pay.

In the legal system (Depending on the state) a minor is deemed incapable of making their own as it could very well be easily influenced, or for that matter just stupidity. That's why the juvenile system was created to give kids a second chance instead of shipping them off to some penitentiary. What good comes from not giving people a second chance? They either turn out better than they were before, or complete monsters. As for Sythe, if the will is good enough, they'll come back regardless of their ban (Whether it be to scam or to be a productive member).

Now obviously, all bans can't be looked at, and I understand this. But when the person has the firm sense of innocence that they would make a dispute, it should be reviewed (More than a simple post of "Its againzt rules sry bye"). If someone has scammed, and there is conclusive evidence against them, by all means - Ban them. But if someone, such as Splitter, was permed for MENTIONING phishing, then I think it's time to reevaluate our standards and rules because in my opinion, something like that doesn't warrant a perm ban.

Makes an interesting point. I've been a victim of this, and I've seen my share fair of consequences. I think second chances should be given, depending on the severity of the case. If someone mentions that they're going to phish someone, then ban them, but for something that has been done or mentioned in the past, then they should deserve a second opportunity. I was given a second chance, and it seems fair that others deserve it too.

 

[SuF]

In regard to Splitter's case, it seems a bit unfair as he blatantly stated that it was years ago when he committed the offense (This has been seen in some staff members history - I can name 2 off of the top of my head). But how do bans like this really get looked at? Are they actually reviewed or taken into consideration by the staff? Or is the verdict whatever Skele_Master posts a few hours later?

Who's to say that someone can't change. When you were young, you can't tell me that you didn't see a candy bar on the shelf and have the potential mindset to take it. But now that we've grown up, the 96 cents doesn't seem like that much to pay.

In the legal system (Depending on the state) a minor is deemed incapable of making their own as it could very well be easily influenced, or for that matter just stupidity. That's why the juvenile system was created to give kids a second chance instead of shipping them off to some penitentiary. What good comes from not giving people a second chance? They either turn out better than they were before, or complete monsters. As for Sythe, if the will is good enough, they'll come back regardless of their ban (Whether it be to scam or to be a productive member).

Now obviously, all bans can't be looked at, and I understand this. But when the person has the firm sense of innocence that they would make a dispute, it should be reviewed (More than a simple post of "Its againzt rules sry bye"). If someone has scammed, and there is conclusive evidence against them, by all means - Ban them. But if someone, such as Splitter, was permed for MENTIONING phishing, then I think it's time to reevaluate our standards and rules because in my opinion, something like that doesn't warrant a perm ban.

Exactly. There is not a great amount of bans that are like this... But, there are some and they deserve more attention than they are given and a fair shot.

 

This is an unreasonable request.

As glorious as revamping our standards sounds, it will not be done. Skele_Master isn't ban happy, he simply enforces the rules we have now. Bringing people back who have openly admitted to malicious acts such as phishing will not make the community "a better place", in fact, it's probably detrimental in the long run. Give me an example where phishing had a positive impact on the site.

 

[SuF]

This is an unreasonable request.

As glorious as revamping our standards sounds, it will not be done. Skele_Master isn't ban happy, he simply enforces the rules we have now. Bringing people back who have openly admitted to malicious acts such as phishing will not make the community "a better place", in fact, it's probably detrimental in the long run. Give me an example where phishing had a positive impact on the site.

And I just admitted to hacking / password cracking. You have completely missed the point of this thread.

 

And I just admitted to hacking / password cracking. You have completely missed the point of this thread.

You didn't answer my question, I read the thread thoroughly.

I agree with you about being fair, you should get what you want & be banned.

 

[blindkilla]

You didn't answer my question, I read the thread thoroughly.

I agree with you about being fair, you should get what you want & be banned.

You asked no questions...


And going by your previous post, you clearly did not understand the point he was trying to convey.

 

You asked no questions...


And going by your previous post, you clearly did not understand the point he was trying to convey.

I asked for an example.

Looks like you need to touch up on your reading abilities before you insult mine.

 

[SuF]

You didn't answer my question, I read the thread thoroughly.

Okay. I'l spell it out for you. Phishing is not a good thing. People phishing is not a good thing. People change. People make dumb choices is the past and phished a bit. Then they changed and stopped and came to Sythe. They admit to it and are banned. Why is this bad for everyone?

Firstly, they are banned which means one less member of the community. Secondly they are banned while others are not which isn't fair which upsets the community. Thirdly, it makes others afraid to trust the community with their own past issues, which makes the community less of a community.

Why are they being banned?

For the safety of the community?

They have stopped and we can not show that they are still doing it, so that isn't a valid reason.

For punishment?

It happened before Sythe so we can't punish them.

For what then? I don't really know.

I agree with you about being fair, you should get what you want & be banned.

I do not wish to be banned, but if that is what you think should happen to me, then go right ahead. Or you could try growing up and realize that you are not nearly as important as you think you are and instead of attacking my proposal and defending the current system and those involved, you could actually make an attempt to help the discussion move forward instead of stalling it and derailing it. Otherwise, you should just leave and not post again as you are not contributing anything important.

 

[blindkilla]

I asked for an example.

Looks like you need to touch up on your reading abilities before you insult mine.

Give me an example where phishing had a positive impact on the site.

Is not a question.

 

Okay. I'l spell it out for you. Phishing is not a good thing. People phishing is not a good thing. People change. People make dumb choices is the past and phished a bit. Then they changed and stopped and came to Sythe. They admit to it and are banned. Why is this bad for everyone?

Firstly, they are banned which means one less member of the community. Secondly they are banned while others are not which isn't fair which upsets the community. Thirdly, it makes others afraid to trust the community with their own past issues, which makes the community less of a community.

That is a baseless and juvenile stance to take. I can just as easily say you'll change again in the future and scam.

I do not wish to be banned, but if that is what you think should happen to me, then go right ahead. Or you could try growing up and realize that you are not nearly as important as you think you are and instead of attacking my proposal and defending the current system and those involved, you could actually make an attempt to help the discussion move forward instead of stalling it and derailing it. Otherwise, you should just leave and not post again as you are not contributing anything important.

Sorry to knock you off your high horse, SuF. Telling me to grow up simply because I don't agree with you is pretty childish. You're a whining hypocrite, you complain about staff not listening to each other when you were the prime example of it. If I recall correctly, you were the one that ragequit after a debate didn't go your way.

Eat your own words.

 

[blindkilla]

That is a baseless and juvenile stance to take. I can just as easily say you'll change again in the future and scam.

How is this baseless? He clearly showed valid reasoning for his stance.

You can also say that people who don't scam, will scam in the future. I know plenty of people who have phished in the past who completely disagree with the idea of it now.

 

[SuF]

That is a baseless and juvenile stance to take. I can just as easily say you'll change again in the future and scam.

You could change and scam also. You should be banned too. As should every member of the site since they all could change into scammers. Anyone can become a scammer and having a bad past could make them dangerous to give a second chance to. Every case is different and I understand that and I am not saying to make a rule saying that things that happened before Sythe do not matter, I am saying that a shift in mindsets is required to try to allow those who have bad pasts and have changed, like myself to be allowed to stay on Sythe to help themselves and the community.

Sorry to knock you off your high horse, SuF. Telling me to grow up simply because I don't agree with you is pretty childish. You're a whining hypocrite, you complain about staff not listening to each other when you were the prime example of it. If I recall correctly, you were the one that ragequit after a debate didn't go your way.

Eat your own words.

You don't simply disagree, you missed my point entirely and then proceeded to tell me that it will never happen. You obviously do not understand what I am saying, based on you asking for an example. Now you continue derailing the conversation, which I admit is partly my fault, but you turning around and attacking me by calling me a "whining hypocrite" is very mature.

I did ragequit, but not because I lost a debate. I left because it became apparent to me that the staff would blindly follow one person and were unable to see any other way. They were all unable to see another point of view and refused to give the decision a second thought and wouldn't step back to see the bigger picture. I got annoyed at the staff and was ashamed of the decision that was made so I decided to unaffiliate myself with Sythe.

And. Eventually what I wanted the entire time happened, so really I don't care that the decision was made against me because in the long run I did get what I wanted.

 

[M I K E]

With the logic 'once a scammer, always a scammer', you might as well just ban 95%+ of Sythe.
I think it's fair to say however, if you scam/phished/recovered before you came to Sythe, and you acknowledge the fact you were in wrong, I see no point in banning those people. Ultimately, it's up to the staff and Sythe to decide.

 

[SuF]

With the logic 'once a scammer, always a scammer', you might as well just ban 95%+ of Sythe.
I think it's fair to say however, if you scam/phished/recovered before you came to Sythe, and you acknowledge the fact you were in wrong, I see no point in banning those people. Ultimately, it's up to the staff and Sythe to decide.

And its a different case if we find out that they have a very hairy past that might still be going on, as not banning them could be dangerous for everyone else, but if they admit it or talk about it or it seems to be in the past and not coming back then the safety of members is not an issue and they can stay. Every case like this is different and a better mindset and basis for bans is needed for it to be fair and to help the community.

 

You could change and scam also. You should be banned too. As should every member of the site since they all could change into scammers. Anyone can become a scammer and having a bad past could make them dangerous to give a second chance to. Every case is different and I understand that and I am not saying to make a rule saying that things that happened before Sythe do not matter, I am saying that a shift in mindsets is required to try to allow those who have bad pasts and have changed, like myself to be allowed to stay on Sythe to help themselves and the community.

Thank you for effectively proving how ridiculous your argument was to begin with. People shouldn't be allowed second chances for hard offenses.

You don't simply disagree, you missed my point entirely and then proceeded to tell me that it will never happen. You obviously do not understand what I am saying, based on you asking for an example. Now you continue derailing the conversation, which I admit is partly my fault, but you turning around and attacking me by calling me a "whining hypocrite" is very mature.

I did ragequit, but not because I lost a debate. I left because it became apparent to me that the staff would blindly follow one person and were unable to see any other way. They were all unable to see another point of view and refused to give the decision a second thought and wouldn't step back to see the bigger picture. I got annoyed at the staff and was ashamed of the decision that was made so I decided to unaffiliate myself with Sythe.

And. Eventually what I wanted the entire time happened, so really I don't care that the decision was made against me because in the long run I did get what I wanted.

I'm not derailing the conversation. I'm breaking it down using your logic, and you just admitted (without knowing it) that your argument was unreasonable.

 

[SuF]

Thank you for effectively proving how ridiculous your argument was to begin with. People shouldn't be allowed second chances for hard offenses.

Thank you for continuing to think you are the best person in the world. Its not a second chance as they were not at Sythe at the time of the offense. My "argument" as you call it, is solid. I used the same logic in the "debate" that I "ragequited" over and later I got what I wanted, which shows my logic is just fine.

I'm not derailing the conversation. I'm breaking it down using your logic, and you just admitted (without knowing it) that your argument was unreasonable.

You are breaking down my argument without understanding what my argument is as your responses keep showing me that you can not really understand what I am saying and are too closed minded to even consider it. I know exactly where you are coming from, and when I was a mod I would have said the exact same thing. Now, I am just a normal member. Try seeing it through our eyes since none of us seem to be having a hard time understanding what I am saying.

 

Thank you for continuing to think you are the best person in the world. Its not a second chance as they were not at Sythe at the time of the offense. My "argument" as you call it, is solid. I used the same logic in the "debate" that I "ragequited" over and later I got what I wanted, which shows my logic is just fine.

I'm so great, but you're right SuF. You are never wrong.

You are breaking down my argument without understanding what my argument is as your responses keep showing me that you can not really understand what I am saying and are too closed minded to even consider it. I know exactly where you are coming from, and when I was a mod I would have said the exact same thing. Now, I am just a normal member. Try seeing it through our eyes since none of us seem to be having a hard time understanding what I am saying.

You can keep saying I don't understand your argument. My staff position doesn't change the way I think about a situation like this. I'm not surprised the majority of the members here agree with you. Many of them are probably quite guilty of said acts & would love to come clean with no foul. It doesn't make you right.

 

[sneaky82]

Thank you for effectively proving how ridiculous your argument was to begin with. People shouldn't be allowed second chances for hard offenses.



I'm not derailing the conversation. I'm breaking it down using your logic, and you just admitted (without knowing it) that your argument was unreasonable.

I think one of Suf's point is that other staff members should voice there opinion and stand up for other members dispite what other mods will think. Obviously I can't argue this point because I have no access to the staff lounge however from what suf's said this is the case.


Just to back up what suf said about unfair bans...

Do you honestly think that every infraction/ban has been deserved?

I mean look at this thread
http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=886802

A member is given twc because he said he originally came to sythe to scam but he had a change of heart and never did. Do you honestly think that he deserved the temp and the twc he was given just by being honest when replying to a thread.

 

I think one of Suf's point is that other staff members should voice there opinion and stand up for other members dispite what other mods will think. Obviously I can't argue this point because I have no access to the staff lounge however from what suf's said this is the case.


Just to back up what suf said about unfair bans...

Do you honestly think that every infraction/ban has been deserved?

I mean look at this thread
http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=886802

A member is given twc because he said he originally came to sythe to scam but he had a change of heart and never did. Do you honestly think that he deserved the temp and the twc he was given just by being honest when replying to a tread

I'm pretty sure the temp ban had nothing to do with it.