Yeah, a bit behind here.

[Sin666]

But you had to know I'd object to the new rule about self-vouching being only a 3-month temp ban.

Leaking and trolling still merit perm bans, and the implication that self-vouching is less serious than either of those is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, I can see the desire to be lenient, but people who've been perm'ed for self-vouching in the past knew what the punishment was. The fact that they thought it worth the risk has to make you wonder why they were so desperate for a quick reputation.

More to the point, there has to be a harsh punishment attached to self-vouching in order to discourage people from doing it - a three month ban is a pathetic deterrent, especially since it is so difficult to catch. Given what a major part of trading vouches are, if people feel like there's nothing to lose by faking them, they will, and traders will only become even more suspicious and paranoid of each other.

 

But you had to know I'd object to the new rule about self-vouching being only a 3-month temp ban.

Leaking and trolling still merit perm bans, and the implication that self-vouching is less serious than either of those is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, I can see the desire to be lenient, but people who've been perm'ed for self-vouching in the past knew what the punishment was. The fact that they thought it worth the risk has to make you wonder why they were so desperate for a quick reputation.

More to the point, there has to be a harsh punishment attached to self-vouching in order to discourage people from doing it - a three month ban is a pathetic deterrent, especially since it is so difficult to catch. Given what a major part of trading vouches are, if people feel like there's nothing to lose by faking them, they will, and traders will only become even more suspicious and paranoid of each other.

Agreed completely. I'm in favor, and always have been, of returning fake vouches to a permanent ban.

 

[Sanctuary]

But you had to know I'd object to the new rule about self-vouching being only a 3-month temp ban.

Leaking and trolling still merit perm bans, and the implication that self-vouching is less serious than either of those is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, I can see the desire to be lenient, but people who've been perm'ed for self-vouching in the past knew what the punishment was. The fact that they thought it worth the risk has to make you wonder why they were so desperate for a quick reputation.

More to the point, there has to be a harsh punishment attached to self-vouching in order to discourage people from doing it - a three month ban is a pathetic deterrent, especially since it is so difficult to catch. Given what a major part of trading vouches are, if people feel like there's nothing to lose by faking them, they will, and traders will only become even more suspicious and paranoid of each other.

100% agreed. Nothing against the people who were recently banned for it, but it's not fair to everyone who's been perm banned in the past.

 

[SuF]

But you had to know I'd object to the new rule about self-vouching being only a 3-month temp ban.

Leaking and trolling still merit perm bans, and the implication that self-vouching is less serious than either of those is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, I can see the desire to be lenient, but people who've been perm'ed for self-vouching in the past knew what the punishment was. The fact that they thought it worth the risk has to make you wonder why they were so desperate for a quick reputation.

More to the point, there has to be a harsh punishment attached to self-vouching in order to discourage people from doing it - a three month ban is a pathetic deterrent, especially since it is so difficult to catch. Given what a major part of trading vouches are, if people feel like there's nothing to lose by faking them, they will, and traders will only become even more suspicious and paranoid of each other.

I agree that a blanket three month ban is not a good idea, but something got changed and trying to get it changed again so soon would never happen.

 

[Sin666]

I agree that a blanket three month ban is not a good idea, but something got changed and trying to get it changed again so soon would never happen.

I'm a woman, and therefore stubborn. I'll take up any argument regardless of my chances of success.

 

[SuF]

I'm a woman, and therefore stubborn. I'll take up any argument regardless of my chances of success.

I tried and failed and decided to let it be, as Sythe did allow the users to participate in the decision. That was victory enough for me at the time.

 

[pure skillzz]

Agreed, I think we all know why the 3 month ban was introduced. Since the High pardon section was also introduced. They could move it back to permanent ban, then people like Plznate could appeal for a high pardon.

 

[Benwise]

I tried and failed and decided to let it be, as Sythe did allow the users to participate in the decision. That was victory enough for me at the time.

I agree with Sin, and I'm pretty sure the main reason the community voted to change the rule is because Plznate. He is well known, people like him, etc, so they voted to change it.

 

I agree with Sin, and I'm pretty sure the main reason the community voted to change the rule is because Plznate. He is well known, people like him, etc, so they voted to change it.

Yeah, but then we introduced the High Pardon section. I'm pretty sure the rule can be changed now, as most self-vouchers are usually scammers or rule-breakers.

 

[SuF]

I agree with Sin, and I'm pretty sure the main reason the community voted to change the rule is because Plznate. He is well known, people like him, etc, so they voted to change it.

It could be relooked at once he is unbanned. There were other ideas thrown around to make it better.

 

[FireZ]

I have caught over 25 people self vouching. Its nothing less then deception. The problem is much bigger then a lot of you would think it was.

Maybe change it to where 2 accts = 3 month, 3+ accts, which happens often = perm ban.

 

[Sin666]

Also, asking a community full of ban-evaders/scammers/self-vouchers whether or not self-vouching should be a permanent ban doesn't seem like a sound idea.

Even if you figure that 75% of users are good, honest people voting in the best interest of the community, the "be lenient" option gets a 25% boost from the rest.

 

[Logician]

I'm a woman, and therefore stubborn. I'll take up any argument regardless of my chances of success.

Yes, agreed. I think that as a rule perm banned, with the option to temp ban in CERTAIN cases is more fitting.

 

[SuF]

Also, asking a community full of ban-evaders/scammers/self-vouchers whether or not self-vouching should be a permanent ban doesn't seem like a sound idea.

Even if you figure that 75% of users are good, honest people voting in the best interest of the community, the "be lenient" option gets a 25% boost from the rest.

Thats why the staff should look over the suggestion first to see if it is something that they are okay with doing. My suggestion for suggestions (http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=918001) attempts to give the users some say in decisions, while still letting the staff have control over it.

But in regards to rules and bannings. People with obvious malicious intend should be banned. People who seem to have just made a stupid mistake shouldn't be perm banned. Punished someway, just not a perm ban.

 

[Magic Arrow]

I completely agree with Sin. Self-vouching always has been a permanently bannable offence. Fact of the matter, a very high percentage of people would have scammed if they got a trade at the time. The ones that are left with self-vouching couldn't get a trade.

 

[FireZ]

I am in 100% full support of perm bans. Let the admins and the high pardon forum decide if they are worthy of a lesser offense.

 

[Itz_you202]

But you had to know I'd object to the new rule about self-vouching being only a 3-month temp ban.

Leaking and trolling still merit perm bans, and the implication that self-vouching is less serious than either of those is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, I can see the desire to be lenient, but people who've been perm'ed for self-vouching in the past knew what the punishment was. The fact that they thought it worth the risk has to make you wonder why they were so desperate for a quick reputation.

More to the point, there has to be a harsh punishment attached to self-vouching in order to discourage people from doing it - a three month ban is a pathetic deterrent, especially since it is so difficult to catch. Given what a major part of trading vouches are, if people feel like there's nothing to lose by faking them, they will, and traders will only become even more suspicious and paranoid of each other.

99.9% Support Agreed!

 

[SuF]

I am in 100% full support of perm bans. Let the admins and the high pardon forum decide if they are worthy of a lesser offense.

High pardons are for people who are well known. So, people who just make a simple mistake in their first month can't be helped there.

 

[Clashfan]

High pardons are for people who are well known. So, people who just make a simple mistake in their first month can't be helped there.

I think that making a second account and self vouching in order to create a false sense of trust is more than a "simple mistake".

 

[Deacon Frost]

I voted for it to remain a permanent ban and suggested that they be given the chance to redeem themselves, or show that they are truly apologetic, get a twc if unbanned, market banned, etc. A permanent ban isnt necessary in all circumstances, but it should be the normal punishment,