Go back to the old system of apologies

[Deleted member 5577]

Description of the idea: Go back to the old system where you'd directly apologise to the staff member that had to deal with you and where they would decide on the outcome of the apology.

Why should this be added? (pros): They have a different perspective they were there in the sit usually and they received witness statements first hand. I don't know exactly what evidence is reviewed when it is now decided amongst three people if someone is unbanned or not but it seems silly to me and doesn't add any fairness because it's not a dispute its someone owning up for their actions and apologising to the involved parties. I feel like this completely erodes any confidence in staff that was previously there as their bans can be overturned without their input.

What negatives could this have? (cons): None

*Other:
https://perpheads.com/threads/ban-appeal-flugs-on-behalf-of-jay-hatch.42266/ @Super_
https://perpheads.com/threads/husky-ban-appeal.42279/post-327601 @Collier

This took less than 30 mins to decide upon I do have some questions regarding this if the people involved wouldn't mind answering them. Were the original victims consulted? Was the staff member who issued the punishment consulted? How did you come to the decision that this user should be unbanned? Why was the method of decision changed?

 

[Deleted member 5577]

@Samuel if you go ahead and read my original post that might help you

 

[Sam]

@LilChicken Have you read the guidelines?

• Ban Appeals will be dealt with by the staff member who issued the punishment and one other staff member ranked Enforcer plus.
• Ban Appeals should be dealt with within 48 hours, failure to do so will result in any Administrator being able to deal with it themselves.

Not much have changed, other than that another staff member should be there. And that it must be dealt with within 48 hours or admin+ will step in to make sure its not left for weeks.

 

[Deleted member 5577]

@Samuel then how come husky’s was dealt with within 30 mins by 3 people as well as less relevant but @Super_ dealt with jays within 10 mins although he was the banning admin on behalf of flugs

 

[Bnjemann]

Personally I don't see a reason why an enforcer and / or moderator should be having the final say alone with an apology. Too many staff members, past and present, who act like their atop an ivory tower and deny apologies over personal grudges solely because the senior administration were allowing it.

 

[Sam]

@LilChicken staff discretion maybe? I dunno. I personally see no issue with higher staff dealing with apologies when they know everything about the situation already. It is not like Collier had 0 knowledge about the situation as a whole. We have had situations where staff members have kept people banned due to beef. This fixes that to a certain extent.

 

[Double J]

The new system is completely fine. I don't see a need for it to be changed. Why would the victims need to be consulted about the person being unbanned? It wouldn't make sense, Under forum rule 2.5 Administrative Threads, A user directly involved in the situation may post on the appeal:

Spoiler: 2.5 Administrative Threads

2.5 Administrative Threads - Users replying to Action Requests, Ban Appeals, Disputes or Refund Requests must have been directly involved in the situation or posting on someone’s behalf and be providing relevant information to the situation.

As you can see, They can reply if they want, Staff are not really going to waste their time trying to get into contact with the victim for a simple yes/no.

 

[Deleted member 6228]

@LilChicken Super wasn't involved, as you know enforcers cannot ban people, so Super banned jay in that situation and nothing else, was probably the only staff on at the time that could ban someone for Flugs

 

[Deleted member 5577]

That’s not what I’m saying.... I’m saying that option was there previously but simply doesn’t exist when appeals are open for all of 30 mins

 

[Deleted member 5577]

@Inchs I know i basically said that in the post above

 

[Bnjemann]

Idk dude maybe its because Jay Hatch tried appealing a 1 month ban, straight off a freshly appealed 1 month ban about 2 days after his second 1 month ban was appealed, and also has more warnings and bans since 2017 than virtually anyone and everyone else, whilst Husky was unbanned after attempting to appeal about 3 times unsuccessfully?

 

[Double J]

They were in the process of going through them anyway. Why does it matter if they are open for 30 minutes? It was simple, Jay had previously broken the same rule and had just got unbanned. Not hard to understand.

 

[Deleted member 5577]

@Jimmy Jackson you’re clearly not understanding as per usual jays ban appeal was denied after 10 mins luckily some of those affected were able to comment before it was dealt with however husky’s ban appeal was open for 30 mins with no consultation to the people he was disgustingly behaved towards

 

[Deleted member 6228]

@LilChicken As Benji said, Jay appealed very soon after receiving the ban and also has just come back from a similar ban in which an apology was accepted. Husky had barely 2 weeks left on a 6 month ban and had multiple apologies denied before staff finally deciding that it was time to let him back

 

[flugs]

@LilChicken I was present when they made that decision and had a big say in it, just Super posted the comment (and didn't tag me ). Also in this situation Super was spectating the entire admin sit in which I banned him, so he knew enough to make a choice regardless of whether I was there or not.

 

[Double J]

@LilChicken

I’m saying that option was there previously but simply doesn’t exist when appeals are open for all of 30 mins

@Jimmy Jackson you’re clearly not understanding as per usual jays ban appeal was denied after 10 mins

His Appeal was open for 11 Minutes, To which @finlay3110 replied to it. No issue there. As @BigBenji and @Inchs have said, He had just come back from a 1 Month ban after appealing it, to which he broke the same rule 1 week later. Don't get me wrong, I like Jay, But if he is breaking rules right after appealing his ban, he's going to get another ban. If anything, he's had more accepted appeals than most players, Why should he constantly have them accepted if he keeps breaking the same rule?

End of conversation, Points have been made.

 

[Deleted member 5577]

@BigBenji it would help if they're given time to read through to apology as most people aren't on the forums 24/7 people do things like idk sleep and play other things

 

[Mage]

No thanks. Gone are the days of X******m and other individuals banning people and keeping them behind bars because they didn't like them.

 

[Blue]

wonder what that name could be

 

[Husky]

@LilChicken I went afk in a channel with @Adrish, went and cooked dinner for my mum and during it was told I was unbanned. Not once had I even asked Collier or Inchs to be unbanned (IDK who was involved).


LilChicken
Today at 3:23 PM
@Samuel except I don’t own a nazirp server for you to bum lick me over

This is just ridiculous, Samuel and I have had major differences in the past and have literally been at war with each other at times. Yes, he used to play on my 1939RP Server this is true, but so did @Hendricks @Wiki @ibraaa and a ton more. Samuel is considered a friend, but he in no way abuses or "rim licks". Just yesterday we were disputing the ratings being removed form ideas and suggestions section to which he argued his point.

 

[Wiki]

@Husky Please don't remind me of the greatest mistake in my life.