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?

 

[Husky]

@Wiki Your characters are gone BUDDY

 

[Adrish]

I don't see what your problem is. The new approach taken by SA is a lot more productive and actually non-biased. From @Husky's unban (and I don't know why you hate him so much, maybe because he was a bit toxic to nutrient) I can tell you many staff members were consulted. And as far as I'm concerned, Husky has done a lot more to help the community while banned then you ever did. Yes, Husky is my friend, but it doesn't mean that I can't see his toxicity. Yes he can be toxic at times, as everyone on perp can be, as you can be and have clearly been in responses above. At least Husky took time out of his day, spoke with TinySlayer about this and had a OOC blacklist placed in order to try and prevent him from being toxic.

The new system is probably how it always should've been, anyway why would a staff member be have all the say in who plays PERP anymore due to a rule they broke over 3 months ago. The staff member wasn't hurt, and if he was he shouldn't have dealt with the ban/report in the first place to decrease bias. As a staff member, if you ban someone, I've always felt that it should be up to the people that were directly affected due to the rule break, up to a certain point. This certain point being a player showing clearly that he does want to return to the server and has been making an active effort.

At the end of the day, Senior Admins are above these staff members so should always have the final say, but @Collier has done you one better and got another 2 opinions from staff members. The same goes with Super, who is an administrator and also followed the guideline also got another staff members opinion.

This is not a suggestion or ideas thread at all, it's just you wanting to know why Husky got unbanned, and Jay Hatch didn't. To me, this looks like nothing but a salt-fest with zero constructiveness to it at all. Make a staff complaint if you have a problem with how it was dealt.