"Rule 2"

[Corey]

For those of you who don't know, "Rule 2" of the dispute forum is that you must dispute your ban within 1 month of when it was given.

This does seem like a fair rule, to an extent.

I understand that some bans are complicated, and after a month, it can be hard to remember things that happened, but then there are bans that are straight forward, and thus, "Rule 2" should not apply.

Bans where "Rule 2" should not apply are:

-Self Vouching
-Perm ban for repeated infraction accrual.
-Posting Porn
-Etc.

Bans where "Rule 2" should apply are:

-Scamming
-Malicious activities (keylogging, phishing, etc.)
-Etc.

Bans such as self vouching are straight forward, and there are really no elements staff would need to remember when it comes to a dispute. They vouched for themselves/interacted with themselves on another account.


If you understand what I'm getting at, please post constructive criticism.

 

[Gurtaton]

Seems quite logical. Support.

 

[BEYOND REASON]

I don't see the problem with this being added, I support.

 

[Clashfan]

So basically the staff look into it if they have the ability to do so even if it's after a month? That doesn't seem unreasonable, provided it doesn't end up taking too much time to go back and find.

 

[Corey]

So basically the staff look into it if they have the ability to do so even if it's after a month? That doesn't seem unreasonable, provided it doesn't end up taking too much time to go back and find.

No, my point is, some bans are straight forward, and they wouldn't need to go back and look into it. Whats not to understand about "self vouching"? A ban for such a thing is pretty straight forward.

 

[driveahonda]

Seems like a realistic idea. I don't see any issues with this being put in effect. Would benefit the people who have been banned. Have my support.

 

[Corey]

Seems like a realistic idea. I don't see any issues with this being put in effect. Would benefit the people who have been banned. Have my support.

Exactly. I hate to see people banned when they shouldn't be just because they didn't dispute their ban within 1 month.

 

[cosrob97]

Support. It's not hard to do a quick search.

 

[Matt Hasty]

Support only because it sounds correct, if anyone gets what I mean by that.

 

[Boring]

Support, cause this idea looks pretty logical, cause like posting porn orsmth is not even close to when scamming someone.

 

[HamJam]

There's always request a high pardon... it's kinda of an alternative to disputing a ban if you've been denied. There's no time limit for when you request a high pardon, but you can only request it once every 6 months.

 

[Corey]

There's always request a high pardon... it's kinda of an alternative to disputing a ban if you've been denied. There's no time limit for when you request a high pardon, but you can only request it once every 6 months.

Holy crap, a mod that doesn't read the stickies.

The dispute forum is where you dispute a ban that YOU DID NOT DESERVE. High pardon forum is where you acknowledge that you have broken the rules/know you deserved the ban, but you request to be forgiven/pardoned.

Theres a huge difference between the two, high pardon is absolutely not an alternative for people who do not deserve their ban.

Rookie mistake, hamjam <3

 

[Pen]

One month is more than reasonable. If you aren't willing to write up a dispute within a given time frame, then you don't deserve to dispute your ban. It may not be difficult to dig up proof in some situations, but it's a rule we have in place.

Exceptions can be made under some circumstances, but I have not seen a good reason as of yet for not being able to dispute within the one month time frame.

 

[HamJam]

Holy crap, a mod that doesn't read the stickies.

The dispute forum is where you dispute a ban that YOU DID NOT DESERVE. High pardon forum is where you acknowledge that you have broken the rules/know you deserved the ban, but you request to be forgiven/pardoned.

Theres a huge difference between the two, high pardon is absolutely not an alternative for people who do not deserve their ban.

Rookie mistake, hamjam <3

Oops, but I'm sure you got my point >.>


1 Month is still more than enough (like Pen said), unless you're on holidays or you've got more proof proving your innocence. We're very reasonable (the staff), we do make exceptions in some cases.

Plus, when was the last time you saw someone getting denied when they didn't post dispute within 1 month of their ban. It happens very rarely, and if it does happen, we have good reason to ban them.

 

[Corey]

One month is more than reasonable. If you aren't willing to write up a dispute within a given time frame, then you don't deserve to dispute your ban. It may not be difficult to dig up proof in some situations, but it's a rule we have in place.

Exceptions can be made under some circumstances, but I have not seen a good reason as of yet for not being able to dispute within the one month time frame.

What if someone is away on vacation for a month+ and gets banned for self vouching while on vacation, and when he/she gets back, their 1 month is up?

I understand what you're saying, offences such as scamming can be hard to dig up, because you will need to know the severity of the case, and the only way to get that is by looking at the scammer report and what not.

But, offences such as self vouching really require no digging, because what happened is straight forward and to the point; they vouched for themselves/interacted with themselves on a different account.

I'm not saying to rid this rule altogether, but at least post some expections below it, such as what offences/circumstances this would not apply to.

 

[Corey]

Oops, but I'm sure you got my point >.>


1 Month is still more than enough (like Pen said), unless you're on holidays or you've got more proof proving your innocence. We're very reasonable (the staff), we do make exceptions in some cases.

Plus, when was the last time you saw someone getting denied when they didn't post dispute within 1 month of their ban. It happens very rarely, and if it does happen, we have good reason to ban them.

http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=972708

Thats the last time

And I have seen this at least 5-10 other times in the past few month.

My point is, it seems as if most staff do not even look at the dispute unless its under the month.

 

[Pen]

What if someone is away on vacation for a month+ and gets banned for self vouching while on vacation, and when he/she gets back, their 1 month is up?

I understand what you're saying, offences such as scamming can be hard to dig up, because you will need to know the severity of the case, and the only way to get that is by looking at the scammer report and what not.

But, offences such as self vouching really require no digging, because what happened is straight forward and to the point; they vouched for themselves/interacted with themselves on a different account.

I'm not saying to rid this rule altogether, but at least post some expections below it, such as what offences/circumstances this would not apply to.

If said person was gone for a month, then there would be an exception for that situation. However, proof is necessary in that situation.

Rule 2 will remain in place for all rules.