Revise pardon rules

[Syed]

So then people can dispute their "finn-era" bans. If staff deny the dispute, then they'll probably deny the pardon, and then it's a moot point.

And I don't know why you're saying I've never experienced the other side. I've been pardoned before.

You weren't disliked by staff when you were pardoned. Also, you just said exactly what everybody else is saying, they'd be denied. So what's the big problem? Why make a fixed rule on what is obviously a fluid process.

Also since you're obviously referring to Deathsnova in this thread, his ban reason is incredibly stupid and he shouldn't have to even pardon but since the staff is making him, he should get auto-denied?

 

[MohtasaUnique]

I was a non-entity when I was pardoned, and the only reason I was pardoned was because the ban was a finn-era ban. TDD reported me for stealing his image-based thread layout idea, and it got me perm-banned. Sure, I took the idea, but my dispute was denied, whereas my pardon approved. Don't know why, but there you have it. Your point is, then, irrelevant because I didn't get off on a mod favor.

And yes deathsnova should be autodenied, he was already pardoned. Why'd he go and get himself banned again? He's wasted his second chance. Why give him another?

 

[Syed]

And yes deathsnova should be autodenied, he was already pardoned. Why'd he go and get himself banned again? He's wasted his second chance. Why give him another?

Because that's a stupid way of thinking, say you were re-banned for that TDD thing right now as an example, or maybe a new staff members finds out there was a little piece missing from the story you told years ago. You were banned again, that's it for you? You're done? You wasted your second chance?

I don't see it that way because the staff do consistently make mistakes, they always have, and we should always plan for human-error. Having a fixed rule that says no 2 pardons completely flies in the face of that.

 

[Tiny_Net]

As a legitimate user whos first pardon got declined due to 'messiness' basically, I dont support this at all as the pardon system is a hit or miss, and if staff decides to read it then they will.

 

[MohtasaUnique]

Because that's a stupid way of thinking, say you were re-banned for that TDD thing right now as an example, or maybe a new staff members finds out there was a little piece missing from the story you told years ago. You were banned again, that's it for you? You're done? You wasted your second chance?

I don't see it that way because the staff do consistently make mistakes, they always have, and we should always plan for human-error. Having a fixed rule that says no 2 pardons completely flies in the face of that.

If a mod finds out a little piece of information that I withheld from my pardon, I should be banned immediately. I wouldn't want someone else getting away with withholding information from a pardon. And I won't get banned for the TDD thing again because I was already pardoned, and I wouldn't do it again. I would gladly go forever if either of those conditions happened.

 

[Syed]

If a mod finds out a little piece of information that I withheld from my pardon, I should be banned immediately. I wouldn't want someone else getting away with withholding information from a pardon. And I won't get banned for the TDD thing again because I was already pardoned, and I wouldn't do it again. I would gladly go forever if either of those conditions happened.

You must not like this site much in that case. I'm sure others would not "Gladly go forever" if they accidentally left something minor out of a pardon. I know a lot of others would spend a lot of time disputing/requesting pardons, going through every avenue possible to try and get unbanned. Just because you're not as attached to this site, shouldn't mean that everybody else should go without having an avenue to come back available to them.

 

[MohtasaUnique]

People who throw away second chances must like the site even less than I do.

BTW I don't dislike the site. I would leave gladly because it would mean the site has turned me into something I'd rather not be. Since that hasn't happened yet, I'm still content with the site.

 

[Darkest Dream]

I just can't see the necessity for this, what's the point of setting a rule in stone? If the staff decide that a users offenses were minor enough and their contributions great enough to be pardoned for a second time I really can't see what the issue is.

I assume situations like this only come up every so often, why not just look at it on a case by case basis instead of saying "No user can be pardoned twice, ever. Period."

 

[MohtasaUnique]

I just can't see the necessity for this, what's the point of setting a rule in stone? If the staff decide that a users offenses were minor enough and their contributions great enough to be pardoned for a second time I really can't see what the issue is.

I assume situations like this only come up every so often, why not just look at it on a case by case basis instead of saying "No user can be pardoned twice, ever. Period."

We're talking permanent bans, since temporary bans cannot be pardoned. What "minor offense" can you think of that would earn someone a permanent ban...? If the reason for their ban is minor, but it still earned them a permanent ban, then you've got to figure they've done it enough times with enough warning to stop what they're doing. And yet they persist?

Why would we want to welcome people (a second time) who've 1) thrown away a second chance with a major offense or 2) can't control themselves on even the most minor of offenses, and who get themselves ANOTHER permanent ban...?

 

[Darkest Dream]

We're talking permanent bans, since temporary bans cannot be pardoned. What "minor offense" can you think of that would earn someone a permanent ban...? If the reason for their ban is minor, but it still earned them a permanent ban, then you've got to figure they've done it enough times with enough warning to stop what they're doing. And yet they persist?

Why would we want to welcome people (a second time) who've 1) thrown away a second chance with a major offense or 2) can't control themselves on even the most minor of offenses, and who get themselves ANOTHER permanent ban...?

Okay so a user is perm banned for the same reason as you were (copying someones concept, obviously don't know the details). Four years later they piss off Sythe on one of his threads in the spam forum and gets perm banned.

This person is an ex-mod, has contributed a whole lot to the site, and is someone that everyone likes.

9/10 people on staff want to see him back on the site. But wait, they can't because you've decided that "no user should EVER be able to pardon twice, for any reason."

Having a rule set in stone like that just doesn't make sense.

 

[MohtasaUnique]

Okay so a user is perm banned for the same reason as you were (copying someones concept, obviously don't know the details). Four years later they piss off Sythe on one of his threads in the spam forum and gets perm banned.

This person is an ex-mod, has contributed a whole lot to the site, and is someone that everyone likes.

9/10 people on staff want to see him back on the site. But wait, they can't because you've decided that "no user should EVER be able to pardon twice, for any reason."

Having a rule set in stone like that just doesn't make sense.

Why would anyone piss off sythe? He owns the site, if he wanted you to stay away, he'd ban you and no one could undo it.

And if the ban was something as ridiculous as this, then do a dispute, not a pardon.

Seriously, every example you people come up with of someone who should be exempt to this suggestion rule has been theoretically banned for being a dumbass. In which case, it's their own fault.

 

[Darkest Dream]

Again, I don't see why it rests on me to provide some kind of ideal example. If someone makes two mistakes and the staff take the circumstances into account and decide that they'd like to see the user on the site, what is the issue with that? You might feel like no one deserves two chances, but it seems that in some cases the majority of the staff disagree with you. Making a rule that is can NEVER happen even just seems silly to me.

I'm not going to post on this thread anymore because obviously people have a right to their own opinions, but I just can't see a compelling reason for this.

 

[Poperi]

I think maybe there should be a rule in place if the person has scammed twice and then pardoned but not I'd the ban is for something like being a 'troll' then I believe they should be allowed to pardon more than once

 

[FireZ]

I dont support this at all, rediculous to not allow multiple pardons to those who may be deserving.

 

[Ardy]

After thinking about it I'm going with no support.

Pardons are based on a case-to-case basis and I think that should be suffice. Why should we bother making a rule saying you can't pardon twice? There are numerous people who've been pardoned more than once that pose no threat to Sythe.

Should staff be sure they're aware that the user has been pardoned once before? Yes. Should we disallow them the chance to speak, no.

No support.

 

[Entrr]

I'm on the fence about this one truly. It is definitely a case by case scenario. If given a second chance and you still proceed to scam again then there's absolutely no reason you should be given the time of day when it comes to a pardon.

On the other hand if you were perm banned for lets say scamming when you were just young and you've since changed, and then you were banned misinterpreted conversation with a moderator/admin because it happens. Would you not be allowed to pardon? Sure a dispute would maybe solve it since you may be able to clear things up with said mod but say feelings were still raw at the time and in the future you'd like to pardon. It is one of the only scenarios I don't support this suggestion for.

tl;dr If you scam twice you should be gone, other scenarios should be case by case.

 

[MohtasaUnique]

Again, I don't see why it rests on me to provide some kind of ideal example. If someone makes two mistakes and the staff take the circumstances into account and decide that they'd like to see the user on the site, what is the issue with that? You might feel like no one deserves two chances, but it seems that in some cases the majority of the staff disagree with you. Making a rule that is can NEVER happen even just seems silly to me.

I'm not going to post on this thread anymore because obviously people have a right to their own opinions, but I just can't see a compelling reason for this.

Again, because there is no circumstance that makes sense to let someone back, and I invited people to come up with a scenario. No one could because there isn't one

 

[R]

I dont see a repeat scammer being pardoned anyways, as Entrr says, case-by-case. Too many rules can be more damaging than too few.

 

[Blade]

Personally, I believe they should be case-by-case as well. People are often banned for bullshit reasons and deserve pardons, and you can't predict that, however i do agree that only one scam pardon should be allowed.

 

[R]

We'll deal with these case-by-case.