Miniranks when banned.

@Ghast and Farcast

To my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the pardon system in place for giving a second chance? Almost like a parole?
They still did wrong, and still were meant to be banned. Look at the case with Jack Goff; he was banned and pardoned successfully but when he came back he was no longer an OMM. Why shouldn't the same apply to miniranks when they're technically ranks?

It'd raise more money for sythe, and I'm pretty sure losing your miniranks is a small price to pay to be given a second chance at being unbanned.

However, in the case of disputing a false ban, then this shouldn't be allowed.

You're correct, but the issue here is that it is dealt with on a case by case basis.

A user is not always stripped of their ranks as a stipulation to a pardon. As such, a user may not always be stripped of their miniranks, either. I think it brings in another layer of unnecessary complexity to pardoning that may not be ideal.

 

[Trin]

Well, what you're asking for would require the entire pardon system to be changed (when, realistically, it's fine as is right now.)

I don't feel like these auctions are a grave enough update for such a drastic and time consuming change to an already adequate system.

I understand the system (website coding/scripts, ban/perm ban ques- Essentially, everyone is placed in a perm ban que if a person gets banned.) as it's designed. However, I was referring to the mannerism or behavior in which it's handled in the forefront (the pardoning system). -looking at it in a standpoint of a common, everyday forum member that knows nothing about the background workings of the system in place-

Edit: Clarifying what I mean by "system".

 

[RSGambler]

Sounds awesome but won't happen for sure

 

[n4n0]

There's too many variables that come into play, and too much work to create such a system. This is why it was scrapped in the first place.

 

[Natrly_Selected]

There's too many variables that come into play, and too much work to create such a system. This is why it was scrapped in the first place.

You know your idea was decent when you have admins mods and members debating

 

[n4n0]

You know your idea was decent when you have admins mods and members debating

Except there's no mods/admins debating. There's members debating, and an admin (me) stating that it 99% isn't going to happen.

Not closing this and saying no just yet because I'm hoping to talk to Richard to see if he still had any plans on looking into this, but I'm not nor should any of you hold your breath.

 

Except there's no mods/admins debating. There's members debating, and an admin (me) stating that it 99% isn't going to happen.

Not closing this and saying no just yet because I'm hoping to talk to Richard to see if he still had any plans on looking into this, but I'm not nor should any of you hold your breath.

This. No support. If we trust people enough to allow them to return we clearly don't feel as if they should be punished any longer therefore stripping them of ranks they've earned is a no go. It's like a stripping a user of donor status for being banned.

 

It was reversed because it causes more problems than benefits. It's just miniranks, let it be.

 

It was reversed because it causes more problems than benefits. It's just miniranks, let it be.

Exactly this. I don't see a reason why we need to auction off mini-ranks. Too many factors come into play such as wrongful bans etc.

 

It was reversed because it causes more problems than benefits. It's just miniranks, let it be.

This plus if someone's banned per a report, the miniranks can be transferred over as partial repayment. Contact me for this. Otherwise, above quote sums this one up.