Intro
First off, let me start off by saying that I'm purposely not posting this in the spam forum. This isn't "#freehattez #420blazeitfaggot". I want to offer legitimate feedback, and am putting time and effort into it - not because I have anything to gain from it, but because I enjoy the site and I want to see it function well. This is not an "OMG Sythe is dying, OMG Sythe was so much better in 2002", or ragequit thread etc.
Second, I will try my best to avoid any personal attacks and going off topic - and I encourage anyone responding in this thread to avoid that as well. When I state something that is clearly my opinion, I will try to preface the statement with "in my opinion" as much as possible.
Third, let me go ahead and explain the lens that I'm viewing the situation from. I'm a Dragon Dyce administrator - I can understand/relate to the stress of having to deal with scammers, ban evaders, imposters, policing a lot of ranks/staff/"employees", and trying to organize a coherent way to organize a good system to conduct millions of dollars in online trades. Being in a position of authority means that actions taken or decisions made by you are always scrutinized by people who aren't privy to the same information set as you. Legitimate authority, however, is earned - not exerted on others.
In an attempt to be as objective/fair as possible - if I make any obvious fallacy - please quote the specifics and I'll amend my point or concede.
__________________________________________________
The gears in the machine
Richard, in general, you seem to be reasonable, I haven't been around here long, but you seem to command respect. Most importantly, it isn't respect that has to be bought, and it isn't "kiss-ass" respect. From this quote below, I can tell that you are passionate about doing the "right" or "good" thing OBJECTIVELY. This is a character trait/mindset that is rare in this world where the way evolution or the environment molds everyone to act in their own interest. [Please don't comment on choice of words here, especially "right", "good", "evolution", "environment", etc. Philosophers have written enough tomes over thousands of years about the depth of these concepts, I'm just trying to get the point across that you actually seem to care about the way things should be done; even if it isn't in personal or tangible self interest]
__________________________________________________
If you don't like it, get the fuck out
Elimination is always an option for people in authority. At the end of the day, you carry the final decision. I fully understand that when people try your patience without good reason, the easiest thing to do is tell them to fuck off, and terminate them from everything you have the ability to, and offer no second chances. Although this solves an immediate problem, it does not 'win' a conflict, it just makes them a martyr and you a persecutor.
__________________________________________________
Example - guilty by association, provocation, burden of responsibility, personal bias
[I will try my best to provide a parallel example of the case in question without using it as an example itself (Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning Fallacy). I'll try to get my point across, just equate the similar structure]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's say someone throws a college party. They steal some alcohol, and serve it. Underage drinkers end up consuming said alcohol. There are a few people at the party who encourage these people to consume far too much alcohol, knowing that they had access to vehicles. Several of these inebriated people leave this party in their vehicles, and one of them causes a wreck, killing another person and themselves.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In case you haven't figured out everyone's roles in this situation, I'll list them out clearly.
Role: All of the people of legal drinking age at the party who did not operate a vehicle: In this scenario, it would be generally agreed upon that people who were present at the party are not significantly responsible for any damages or loss of life. They were present, they did not drive any vehicles, their involvement in the situation is merely being there, and partaking in the consumption of alcohol while not in public, which is legal.
|||
In this comparison, the "party" is the equivalent of the Skype chat that was condemned during the case in question. Their presence is not illegal, and drinking in private (in this case, the Skype chat) is legal. Only when they enter public is it a crime (in this case, Sythe.org being the role of 'public').
---
Role: The party "host"/alcohol thief/provider: In this scenario, the alcohol provider has broken the law by stealing something, and distributing it to others. Stealing is clearly against the law, they obtained something through a means which they were not supposed to.
|||
In this comparison, the "alcohol thief" is the person or persons who hacked an email account, and obtained things that were not meant to be had by them. If this person or persons were a Sythe.org member(s), they would earn a permanent ban.
---
Role: The underage drinkers: In this scenario, underage drinking is technically illegal, but it is a relatively petty crime. People get caught doing it all the time, but they are selectively punished based on who the underage drinker is, and who is enforcing the law.
|||
In this comparison, the underage drinkers were the people who were recipients of the stolen pictures/leaked personal info. Personal info leaking is a not a permanent ban (read above, underage drinking is a relatively petty crime). People get caught doing it all the time, but they are selectively punished depending on who the offender is, and who is enforcing it. Offenders being those who participated in the Skype chat, and the one enforcing the rules being the staff member who distributed bans.
---
Role: The people at the party who aggressively encouraged the underage people to drink, knowing that they had access to vehicles: In this scenario, they are not necessarily breaking the law (note, laws for this will vary depending on where you live, but for the sake of the example, they are not committing a crime). However, in my opinion, most would consider them instigators. They did not hand the drivers the keys, they did not hand the drinkers any alcohol, but they did create a situation that was unsafe for themselves and other drivers on the road. If these instigators tell a drunk person "I bet you can't do another shot", and they down a shot, then follow up with "I bet you can't take two more shots", the situation escalates faster than either member intended.
|||
In this comparison, the people who were instigating are Trin and N4n0. They are technically innocent, like the ones above. However - in my opinion, it was a very poor choice for them to act the way they did, and their actions had a hand to play in the eventual outcome.
---
Role: The underage, inebriated drivers who killed someone with their vehicle. In this scenario, they are very guilty of a serious crime, that had very unpleasant consequences.
|||
In this comparison, these are the people who used what they had obtained from the person who is listed above as the "party host"/alcohol thief and caused serious damage. This would be anyone involved in the real life harassment of the people whose personal info was leaked and their families. In my opinion, it would be universally agreed that this was wrong to the fullest extent. Once again, this person or person(s) (as far as I am aware) are not Sythe.org members, like the "party host".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now that we've established everyone's role in this situation and had our history lesson, let's make the parallel that is relevant to recent events.
The person killed in the vehicle accident was the close friend/family member/spouse/child/loved one of the people who have the role of the people encouraging the underage people to drink. One member of the group who was encouraging the underage people to drink is also a highly tenured Judge - capable of enforcing the law. The driver is also killed in the accident, leaving the Judge grieving, and the person(s) directly responsible are beyond his reach to punish, as they are dead
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In this scenario, the people who committed the true crime cannot be punished. They are dead, beyond the reach of the authority of the Judge, so they will never be able to pay for their extremely harmful actions.
|||
In this comparison, n4n0 is the Judge. He has the authority to punish, but within the means of the law. Now, since the true perpetrators of the crime cannot be punished, the focus shifts to those who were involved in the more minor crimes (in this case, sharing personal info). The rules says they can be banned for a month for this offence.
Now, let's take a step back for a moment and look at the whole situation. Should the "victim" of the tragedy be allowed the sole and final say over what happens to the people who are now being tried for the more minor offence? Absolutely not. The level of bias could not be any stronger. In fact, not only should the victim not have the final say in the matter, they really shouldn't have any control over the outcome since they are so personally involved, aside from their testimony.
In this scenario, the Judge would never be allowed to rule over the case, and the penalties for the minor crime would still apply, and the defense would still have the right to a fair trial.
So, how does the Judge rule against those that he has personal grudges against who were at the party, either breaking no laws, or only very minor ones? The maximum penalty should only be one month in jail for the offence committed.
The Judge instead sentences these people to death for minor and/or perceived petty crimes. They do not get a trial, he has sole decision as the victim, judge, jury, and executioner
So, finally, we address what is listed in the title for this subsection.
Guilty by association: The users who were banned were not banned for hacking. They were not banned for harassing the people in point and their families. If you weren't there at the time, or only heard one side of the story, it would be extremely easy to demonize anyone who was around at the time.
Provocation: Spam forum trolling, by no means, is an excuse for someone hacking a personal email. However, in hindsight, if the overstepping of boundaries didn't occur, then it is almost certain that n4n0/Trin would have never been targeted. Name changes are reserved for staff, fun ranks are given out extremely sparingly. Giving these to a user who has contributed nothing to the community, simply on account of favoritism is already a bold move - a bold move that doesn't follow the guidelines that everyone else has to. Gloating about it for days and days and pages and pages is just a bad idea, considering the amount of time and effort that others have to put in to get the same benefits.
Burden of responsibility: Securing your email & other online accounts is the responsibility of that user. I won't place too much emphasis on this, because not everyone is a security expert (including myself), and in many cases, it is the fault of the provider.
Personal Bias: Trin was given favorable treatment due to personal bias. Hattez was given negative treatment due to personal bias. Everyone is prone to bias, whether they intend it or not. However, in these two cases, the bias well overstepped the boundaries of the site guidelines, in the case of Trin's name change/ranks, and Hattez's ban being not only permanent, but un-pardonable.
__________________________________________________
The Point?
This site has been operating for almost a decade. Large portions of people's lives have been spent on Sythe, people have made careers from Sythe, people have made friends on Sythe. Don't let personal grudges get in the way of the way the site operates.
__________________________________________________
The Judge
From Hattez's first pardon:
N4n0's response:
Now, at this point, at appears that Hattez was making a legitimate pardon. Read the quote again and take note of the tone: "Haven't had the chance to really talk in depth" "for the most part" "I believe"
None of those phrases seem to scream blatant to me. If Hattez was blatantly lying, he would say "I talked to Trin on TS and she said you could go ahead and unban me"
N4n0 closed the pardon, claiming it to be against the guidelines because of this blatant lie. The other staff did not contest it - but in my opinion, Hattez clearly did not have the intention of blatantly lying.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Josh0
Fast forward some, Josh0 becomes staff. In my opinion, Josh0 shouldn't have a vote in the pardon, because he wasn't active at the time the entire drama went down, he is acting solely on secondhand information. This isn't a personal attack against Josh0, it's just that having someone vote on a pardon who knows nothing about the circumstances of the ban makes about as much sense as taking your car to McDonald's to get the oil changed.
The entire situation turned into a circlejerk.
Isn't up for pardon? Scammers are allowed back onto this site through pardons, but the Hattez case should never be allowed to pardon? Strong disagreement with you there.
There's a reason other staff have a say in the first place. Saying you speak for everyone is incredibly ignorant, there would be no purpose of the support/polling system.
He wasn't stirring up shit, he was applying for a pardon. You "killing it before it could go anywhere" is exactly what is wrong here. Pardon guidelines are there for exactly that reason, you aren't supposed to kill it before it can go anywhere, banned members are supposed to get a chance. This is censorship/abuse at it's finest.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FireZ
It would probably be more beneficial to the other staff to know reasons why you feel Hattez should remain banned, to prevent groupthink voting.
I admire you a lot for this - up to this point, no one had addressed that the pardons were not conducted correctly.
Roary
Leanbean
I'm glad that you both voiced your opinion on this eventually, and did it tactfully.
__________________________________________________
Guilty by association
You know what it is to feel wronged by people who have a negative bias towards you simply because of their perception of you through your position on this site. Imagine the "intense hatred" that Hattez would feel, except combine that with the power difference between site owner and banned member.
__________________________________________________
Final feedback?
1. Ultimately, it's your site, it's your decision. However, if you are going to go that route, take some time to read what I said in the If you don't like it, get the fuck out section of this thread.
Giving the 'victim' the sole decision is the worst way to ensure principle 2 of the pardon system. I can only imagine that the reason the pardon system guidelines are designed around many staff members having a say is to help enforce principle 2. I can't think of a good reason to have the 'victim' decide the fate of the offender as opposed to a vote by multiple people.
http://www.sythe.org/13282204-post1.html
http://www.sythe.org/13519658-post1.html
http://www.sythe.org/13582248-post1.html
I'll let staff decide that themselves.
At first, when I read this, I thought that you didn't understand the circumstances of Hattez's ban, and that you had been mislead or misinterpreted it. Hattez did not steal naked pictures. Hattez did not post them around the internet. You use the words "in this particular case", but it's already been well established that Hattez's ban has nothing to do with stealing or spreading naked pictures.
Now, what worries me is this:
Note that Hattez is not listed there. He was not banned for doxing and picture dissemination.
^^^^^^
Hattez is becoming a scapegoat for offences he clearly did not commit. Hattez is not a hacker, it was determined that Hattez was asleep/not online during the picture spread. Trying to pin a restitution requirement to n4n0 for hacking, doxing, and picture dissemination is just a cheap way to justify him not being able to pardon.
__________________________________________________
Richard
My final words are to refer back to this:
Read back over that and let me know if you think making Hattez pay restitution for hacking, doxing, and picture dissemination, when he did not perform any of these actions follows your code of rational ethics. Let me know if you think it is rational for the 'victim' of a crime to be the judge, jury, and executioner for the perpetrator, when in every other case, a team of staff is allowed to voice their opinions and cast their votes.
My advice? Hattez has already served his 1 month ban for leaking personal info. Even if you were to stack that three times for his multiple posts that were deleted, a 3 month ban would have already expired.
Also, Alex J Leon's pardon was also denied prematurely by n4n0. I don't know the specifics of his ban, so I can't weigh in on it, but if the ban reason/no pardon reason is similar to Hattez's, I would suggest looking into Alex J Leon's as well.
__________________________________________________
TL;DR?
It took me far longer to write this than it will take you to read it. Extend me the courtesy of reading it so I don't have to repeat myself. If not, go to the spam forum.
First off, let me start off by saying that I'm purposely not posting this in the spam forum. This isn't "#freehattez #420blazeitfaggot". I want to offer legitimate feedback, and am putting time and effort into it - not because I have anything to gain from it, but because I enjoy the site and I want to see it function well. This is not an "OMG Sythe is dying, OMG Sythe was so much better in 2002", or ragequit thread etc.
Second, I will try my best to avoid any personal attacks and going off topic - and I encourage anyone responding in this thread to avoid that as well. When I state something that is clearly my opinion, I will try to preface the statement with "in my opinion" as much as possible.
Third, let me go ahead and explain the lens that I'm viewing the situation from. I'm a Dragon Dyce administrator - I can understand/relate to the stress of having to deal with scammers, ban evaders, imposters, policing a lot of ranks/staff/"employees", and trying to organize a coherent way to organize a good system to conduct millions of dollars in online trades. Being in a position of authority means that actions taken or decisions made by you are always scrutinized by people who aren't privy to the same information set as you. Legitimate authority, however, is earned - not exerted on others.
In an attempt to be as objective/fair as possible - if I make any obvious fallacy - please quote the specifics and I'll amend my point or concede.
__________________________________________________
The gears in the machine
Richard, in general, you seem to be reasonable, I haven't been around here long, but you seem to command respect. Most importantly, it isn't respect that has to be bought, and it isn't "kiss-ass" respect. From this quote below, I can tell that you are passionate about doing the "right" or "good" thing OBJECTIVELY. This is a character trait/mindset that is rare in this world where the way evolution or the environment molds everyone to act in their own interest. [Please don't comment on choice of words here, especially "right", "good", "evolution", "environment", etc. Philosophers have written enough tomes over thousands of years about the depth of these concepts, I'm just trying to get the point across that you actually seem to care about the way things should be done; even if it isn't in personal or tangible self interest]
__________________________________________________
If you don't like it, get the fuck out
Elimination is always an option for people in authority. At the end of the day, you carry the final decision. I fully understand that when people try your patience without good reason, the easiest thing to do is tell them to fuck off, and terminate them from everything you have the ability to, and offer no second chances. Although this solves an immediate problem, it does not 'win' a conflict, it just makes them a martyr and you a persecutor.
__________________________________________________
Example - guilty by association, provocation, burden of responsibility, personal bias
[I will try my best to provide a parallel example of the case in question without using it as an example itself (Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning Fallacy). I'll try to get my point across, just equate the similar structure]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's say someone throws a college party. They steal some alcohol, and serve it. Underage drinkers end up consuming said alcohol. There are a few people at the party who encourage these people to consume far too much alcohol, knowing that they had access to vehicles. Several of these inebriated people leave this party in their vehicles, and one of them causes a wreck, killing another person and themselves.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In case you haven't figured out everyone's roles in this situation, I'll list them out clearly.
Role: All of the people of legal drinking age at the party who did not operate a vehicle: In this scenario, it would be generally agreed upon that people who were present at the party are not significantly responsible for any damages or loss of life. They were present, they did not drive any vehicles, their involvement in the situation is merely being there, and partaking in the consumption of alcohol while not in public, which is legal.
|||
In this comparison, the "party" is the equivalent of the Skype chat that was condemned during the case in question. Their presence is not illegal, and drinking in private (in this case, the Skype chat) is legal. Only when they enter public is it a crime (in this case, Sythe.org being the role of 'public').
---
Role: The party "host"/alcohol thief/provider: In this scenario, the alcohol provider has broken the law by stealing something, and distributing it to others. Stealing is clearly against the law, they obtained something through a means which they were not supposed to.
|||
In this comparison, the "alcohol thief" is the person or persons who hacked an email account, and obtained things that were not meant to be had by them. If this person or persons were a Sythe.org member(s), they would earn a permanent ban.
---
Role: The underage drinkers: In this scenario, underage drinking is technically illegal, but it is a relatively petty crime. People get caught doing it all the time, but they are selectively punished based on who the underage drinker is, and who is enforcing the law.
|||
In this comparison, the underage drinkers were the people who were recipients of the stolen pictures/leaked personal info. Personal info leaking is a not a permanent ban (read above, underage drinking is a relatively petty crime). People get caught doing it all the time, but they are selectively punished depending on who the offender is, and who is enforcing it. Offenders being those who participated in the Skype chat, and the one enforcing the rules being the staff member who distributed bans.
---
Role: The people at the party who aggressively encouraged the underage people to drink, knowing that they had access to vehicles: In this scenario, they are not necessarily breaking the law (note, laws for this will vary depending on where you live, but for the sake of the example, they are not committing a crime). However, in my opinion, most would consider them instigators. They did not hand the drivers the keys, they did not hand the drinkers any alcohol, but they did create a situation that was unsafe for themselves and other drivers on the road. If these instigators tell a drunk person "I bet you can't do another shot", and they down a shot, then follow up with "I bet you can't take two more shots", the situation escalates faster than either member intended.
|||
In this comparison, the people who were instigating are Trin and N4n0. They are technically innocent, like the ones above. However - in my opinion, it was a very poor choice for them to act the way they did, and their actions had a hand to play in the eventual outcome.
---
Role: The underage, inebriated drivers who killed someone with their vehicle. In this scenario, they are very guilty of a serious crime, that had very unpleasant consequences.
|||
In this comparison, these are the people who used what they had obtained from the person who is listed above as the "party host"/alcohol thief and caused serious damage. This would be anyone involved in the real life harassment of the people whose personal info was leaked and their families. In my opinion, it would be universally agreed that this was wrong to the fullest extent. Once again, this person or person(s) (as far as I am aware) are not Sythe.org members, like the "party host".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now that we've established everyone's role in this situation and had our history lesson, let's make the parallel that is relevant to recent events.
The person killed in the vehicle accident was the close friend/family member/spouse/child/loved one of the people who have the role of the people encouraging the underage people to drink. One member of the group who was encouraging the underage people to drink is also a highly tenured Judge - capable of enforcing the law. The driver is also killed in the accident, leaving the Judge grieving, and the person(s) directly responsible are beyond his reach to punish, as they are dead
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In this scenario, the people who committed the true crime cannot be punished. They are dead, beyond the reach of the authority of the Judge, so they will never be able to pay for their extremely harmful actions.
|||
In this comparison, n4n0 is the Judge. He has the authority to punish, but within the means of the law. Now, since the true perpetrators of the crime cannot be punished, the focus shifts to those who were involved in the more minor crimes (in this case, sharing personal info). The rules says they can be banned for a month for this offence.
Now, let's take a step back for a moment and look at the whole situation. Should the "victim" of the tragedy be allowed the sole and final say over what happens to the people who are now being tried for the more minor offence? Absolutely not. The level of bias could not be any stronger. In fact, not only should the victim not have the final say in the matter, they really shouldn't have any control over the outcome since they are so personally involved, aside from their testimony.
In this scenario, the Judge would never be allowed to rule over the case, and the penalties for the minor crime would still apply, and the defense would still have the right to a fair trial.
So, how does the Judge rule against those that he has personal grudges against who were at the party, either breaking no laws, or only very minor ones? The maximum penalty should only be one month in jail for the offence committed.
The Judge instead sentences these people to death for minor and/or perceived petty crimes. They do not get a trial, he has sole decision as the victim, judge, jury, and executioner
So, finally, we address what is listed in the title for this subsection.
Guilty by association: The users who were banned were not banned for hacking. They were not banned for harassing the people in point and their families. If you weren't there at the time, or only heard one side of the story, it would be extremely easy to demonize anyone who was around at the time.
Provocation: Spam forum trolling, by no means, is an excuse for someone hacking a personal email. However, in hindsight, if the overstepping of boundaries didn't occur, then it is almost certain that n4n0/Trin would have never been targeted. Name changes are reserved for staff, fun ranks are given out extremely sparingly. Giving these to a user who has contributed nothing to the community, simply on account of favoritism is already a bold move - a bold move that doesn't follow the guidelines that everyone else has to. Gloating about it for days and days and pages and pages is just a bad idea, considering the amount of time and effort that others have to put in to get the same benefits.
Burden of responsibility: Securing your email & other online accounts is the responsibility of that user. I won't place too much emphasis on this, because not everyone is a security expert (including myself), and in many cases, it is the fault of the provider.
Personal Bias: Trin was given favorable treatment due to personal bias. Hattez was given negative treatment due to personal bias. Everyone is prone to bias, whether they intend it or not. However, in these two cases, the bias well overstepped the boundaries of the site guidelines, in the case of Trin's name change/ranks, and Hattez's ban being not only permanent, but un-pardonable.
__________________________________________________
The Point?
This site has been operating for almost a decade. Large portions of people's lives have been spent on Sythe, people have made careers from Sythe, people have made friends on Sythe. Don't let personal grudges get in the way of the way the site operates.
__________________________________________________
The Judge
From Hattez's first pardon:
N4n0's response:
Now, at this point, at appears that Hattez was making a legitimate pardon. Read the quote again and take note of the tone: "Haven't had the chance to really talk in depth" "for the most part" "I believe"
None of those phrases seem to scream blatant to me. If Hattez was blatantly lying, he would say "I talked to Trin on TS and she said you could go ahead and unban me"
N4n0 closed the pardon, claiming it to be against the guidelines because of this blatant lie. The other staff did not contest it - but in my opinion, Hattez clearly did not have the intention of blatantly lying.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Josh0
Fast forward some, Josh0 becomes staff. In my opinion, Josh0 shouldn't have a vote in the pardon, because he wasn't active at the time the entire drama went down, he is acting solely on secondhand information. This isn't a personal attack against Josh0, it's just that having someone vote on a pardon who knows nothing about the circumstances of the ban makes about as much sense as taking your car to McDonald's to get the oil changed.
The entire situation turned into a circlejerk.
Isn't up for pardon? Scammers are allowed back onto this site through pardons, but the Hattez case should never be allowed to pardon? Strong disagreement with you there.
There's a reason other staff have a say in the first place. Saying you speak for everyone is incredibly ignorant, there would be no purpose of the support/polling system.
He wasn't stirring up shit, he was applying for a pardon. You "killing it before it could go anywhere" is exactly what is wrong here. Pardon guidelines are there for exactly that reason, you aren't supposed to kill it before it can go anywhere, banned members are supposed to get a chance. This is censorship/abuse at it's finest.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FireZ
It would probably be more beneficial to the other staff to know reasons why you feel Hattez should remain banned, to prevent groupthink voting.
I admire you a lot for this - up to this point, no one had addressed that the pardons were not conducted correctly.
Roary
Leanbean
I'm glad that you both voiced your opinion on this eventually, and did it tactfully.
__________________________________________________
Guilty by association
You know what it is to feel wronged by people who have a negative bias towards you simply because of their perception of you through your position on this site. Imagine the "intense hatred" that Hattez would feel, except combine that with the power difference between site owner and banned member.
__________________________________________________
Final feedback?
1. Ultimately, it's your site, it's your decision. However, if you are going to go that route, take some time to read what I said in the If you don't like it, get the fuck out section of this thread.
Giving the 'victim' the sole decision is the worst way to ensure principle 2 of the pardon system. I can only imagine that the reason the pardon system guidelines are designed around many staff members having a say is to help enforce principle 2. I can't think of a good reason to have the 'victim' decide the fate of the offender as opposed to a vote by multiple people.
http://www.sythe.org/13282204-post1.html
http://www.sythe.org/13519658-post1.html
http://www.sythe.org/13582248-post1.html
I'll let staff decide that themselves.
At first, when I read this, I thought that you didn't understand the circumstances of Hattez's ban, and that you had been mislead or misinterpreted it. Hattez did not steal naked pictures. Hattez did not post them around the internet. You use the words "in this particular case", but it's already been well established that Hattez's ban has nothing to do with stealing or spreading naked pictures.
Now, what worries me is this:
Note that Hattez is not listed there. He was not banned for doxing and picture dissemination.
^^^^^^
Hattez is becoming a scapegoat for offences he clearly did not commit. Hattez is not a hacker, it was determined that Hattez was asleep/not online during the picture spread. Trying to pin a restitution requirement to n4n0 for hacking, doxing, and picture dissemination is just a cheap way to justify him not being able to pardon.
__________________________________________________
Richard
My final words are to refer back to this:
Read back over that and let me know if you think making Hattez pay restitution for hacking, doxing, and picture dissemination, when he did not perform any of these actions follows your code of rational ethics. Let me know if you think it is rational for the 'victim' of a crime to be the judge, jury, and executioner for the perpetrator, when in every other case, a team of staff is allowed to voice their opinions and cast their votes.
My advice? Hattez has already served his 1 month ban for leaking personal info. Even if you were to stack that three times for his multiple posts that were deleted, a 3 month ban would have already expired.
Also, Alex J Leon's pardon was also denied prematurely by n4n0. I don't know the specifics of his ban, so I can't weigh in on it, but if the ban reason/no pardon reason is similar to Hattez's, I would suggest looking into Alex J Leon's as well.
__________________________________________________
TL;DR?
It took me far longer to write this than it will take you to read it. Extend me the courtesy of reading it so I don't have to repeat myself. If not, go to the spam forum.
