Amnesty of active members with banned accounts

[Mentor]

This stems from a point raised in the "old fogeys thread". Like nvrspk says i do, like a number of others, want my original account to be merged with my current one.

Along with the posts, postcount, rep and other things connected to it which will otherwise be lost. Unlike what the previous topic mentions though, i am uninterested in the free rep, as my own motives is primarily to have control of my account in one place and make it easier to dig up my old posts when i need them.

So what is member amnesty? Amnesty itself can mean "Pardon: a warrant granting release from punishment for an offense" and "the formal act of liberating someone"

So to grant amnesty to members who have had accounts ban's i think the issues that need to be proven are:
A) The punishment given did not fit the misdeed, was unfair and essentially unjust.
B) The punishment itself has no value. Punishing people just to punish them is just somewhat sadistic. A punishment only holds value IF it works as both a deterrent to other members and stops members who have received it from breaking rules again.

The above are my two points on "punishment and its effectiveness" as nvrspk puts it :)

Nvrspk4: In the case of proving how long they've been a member, that is essentially a part of the punishment. They've lost the benefits of the old account, established name, old join date, high post count.

So yes, that is a punishment that will act as a deterrent and maybe make other members think twice about breaking rules again (Although this second point i'm not sure is ever true)

With the group i refer to though, i think nether point still holds up.

First off, loosing your account for a year on a forum like habbox, or most members who will likely never stay on that long is probably about as effective as a deterrent can get, 3-4-5 years? I think for a forum at least, that is the longest sentence people should ever really get and is far longer than the average lifespan of many users forum user's. In essence a perm ban is much the say as 3 year would be to most members, and when looked at is somewhat a jump. Theres a very big difference between a week ban, and all of entirety. Maybe a few more punishment levels should get added in the middle as the perm idea is kind of ridiculous.

This long ago, many of the rules were different, you could get permed for giving out an email or msn address for example. So the reasons for ban's then although correct in there own time, are things that have changed as the forum has progressed, why should we maintain a ban on doing something, that now, we think they should have every right to do?

On to my main point of why bans like these do not stop members re offending, i think can be shown best from your own description of punishment. Once a user has lost there post count, rep, posts and everything else. They have nothing to loose, no reason to worry about getting banned again.
Some will come back and spam, break the rules even more etc, before just getting banned again a few more times. Others though, come back and continue to use the forum.. why?

Because those ones, even when they have no reason to fear a ban as they have nothing they can loose, enjoy the forum are a positive influence. They were not out there to break rules, else they would be doing so even more afterwards. Most were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, or disagreed with someone who was on a power trip.

The type that were banned for the unjust reasons, and dont have a history of malicious rule breaking (were not breaking rules on purpose), they are the type of members, than 3-4 years later are still on this forum, often not having been banned again. Its only after 3-4 years they even have anything to loose. If they got there accounts merge, what they have to loose would almost double meaning some may even be more careful about obaying rules due to the threat of looseing so much.

I can imagine no way in which, by giving someone there old account back, you would encourage any additional rule breaking at all.
If someone got there account back, after a number of years, merged with the current. The threat of loosing it all a gain grows massively. It also means members who were recently permed have hope, so dont need to just randomly attack and **** off the forum.

How is any of that a bad thing?


In my own case, i am not a gold star member, i have a good amount of usernotes attached to me in my past - and in some cases present - despite this i have still had the role of manager twice as well as a good amount of other forum positions. People in high up positions in habbox will still trust me even now.
If i was such a bad member, who deserved a permanent ban, why would staff in many cases still trust me - possibly even like me?
My ban was for "being rude to staff members" - this translates to disagreeing with and auguring against they were saying. Not the first ban i've got for simply proving someone with banning powers wrong ether.

I'm happy for any detail of my ban's user notes, etc to be discussed publicly by habboxforum staff and others if they like. If hxf's privacy policy still prevents this even with my permission though, i dont know.

Thanks to anyone who bothered reading my sub rant, for those who didn't my main points.
1)many perms are for rules that were removed(for a reason)
2) a perm is no different to a few years in terms of a deterrent
3) a perm tells members they lost everything for good so have nothing to loose. This encourages rule breaking, not deters it.
4) getting a permed account back, means members will be more likely to abide by rules for fear of loosing it again.
5) Changing perm to 4 years for example, means even with such a long ban, members who are planning to be around for a while, still have a reason to be good. The idea good behaviors may get them unbanned sooner would also likely increase there likelihood of rule abiding in further even more.
6) Perm bans as shown from the prior points, are a lot less effective at getting members to reform than non permanent ones. Encourage permed members to break more rules as opposed to being good in the hopes of regaining there account and generally as far as i can see have no upside.

-----
To end it all, whatever happens with this i will say, i think nvrspk is one of the best GM's habboxforum has ever had. Proof of this is the fact this thread has not been removed and i have not been banned for creating it. Nvrspk unlike many GM's in the past will discuss his view and argue his side fairly, without just abusing his own powers :)

[Nixt]

1)many perms are for rules that were removed(for a reason)


Unfortunately this point is irrelevant. Indeed we have become increasingly lenient across time however the fact remains the rules were rules at the time, and if you were banned for breaking them that is your own fault. Just because they changed in the future does not mean you are therefore entitled to be unbanned. I haven't worded this very well as I am tired, but I am sure you get the gist of what I am saying.



2) a perm is no different to a few years in terms of a deterrent

That's a fair enough point, but if we wanted to ban you for a year we could. A perm ban is a perm ban at the end of the day.



3) a perm tells members they lost everything for good so have nothing to loose. This encourages rule breaking, not deters it.

I disagree. If the member continues to rule break across several accounts further punishment in the form of auto and IP bans are introduced and recently this has happened very rarely. If a member of the Forum is a regular rule breaker then they are going to stay that way across several accounts. If they are generally a well behaved member who made a few mistakes it is likely they will get a bit pissed off and rebel a bit but ultimately, in my experience, this soon dies down.



4) getting a permed account back, means members will be more likely to abide by rules for fear of loosing it again.

Perhaps, however it would also make members think that they can get away with rule breaking more easily in the future as they will only be given their account back.



5) Changing perm to 4 years for example, means even with such a long ban, members who are planning to be around for a while, still have a reason to be good. The idea good behaviors may get them unbanned sooner would also likely increase there likelihood of rule abiding in further even more.

I don't disagree with the point you're making but I do disagree with reducing perm bans, and that is all I can say in response to that point.



6) Perm bans as shown from the prior points, are a lot less effective at getting members to reform than non permanent ones. Encourage permed members to break more rules as opposed to being good in the hopes of regaining there account and generally as far as i can see have no upside.


Generally rule breakers who lose their account permanently are serial rule breakers anyway OR they have broken a rule / group of rules that are totally not compatible with any type of amnesty.

To conclude, I appreciate the points you are making but overall I disagree in repealing permanent bans. It seems pointless, in my opinion, to reduce permanent bans because, as you say, they are virtually the same as a permanent ban. Permanent bans are not given out lightly and therefore if anyone does receive them they are thoroughly deserved in my opinion.

Forgive me if the points I make are unclear and or / poorly structured. I am knackered.

[GommeInc]

I agree entirely. Perm bans are HabboxForums most pointless creations - it's not a deterrent, just means a new account should and can be created.

A forum account is just a means by which a person can communicate with others, by taking that away you still have the person behind it, and that's what is the main argument here is. The person behind the account may change in time to be more mature towards forum rules or the forum rules change to follow common sense and basic reasoning (or just avoid them *cough*).

So the reason for a banned account may become pointless if the person behind the account has a new one and is acting just the same or a little bit more sensible - so why not give them their old account back, which proves:

-How long that person has been a member.
-How many posts have been contributed to the forum by that person.

Keeping them banned seems to prove nothing, other than a forum likes wasting space and enjoys their lines through names.

Of course, there will need to be a system in place to determine which people deserve which accounts merged with their current accounts (Mentor managed to have his account renamed, which is pointless, may as well give him back the whole account and merge it). From what I can see, a one year/two year margin is enough, preferably the former rather than the latter. In my experience, after someone has created a new account and have followed the rules, they should be given their full account back - you've let them return, they've behaved, the previous "perm ban" is deemed invalid. Period.

And Garion my love, your reply to #6 isn't valid, you're talking to Mentor who has got a perm ban on his old account, yet he's been back for ages and isn't a "serial rule breaker" or "contactly breaking a rule or group of rules" ;) Generalising is the devil's lover ;)

[Robbie]

Heck, even I've got a perm banned account and I can't be classed as a rule-breaker can I :P

[GommeInc]

Heck, even I've got a perm banned account and I can't be classed as a rule-breaker can I :P
^ Proof a rule breaker can be loved by society ;)

[Mentor]

Heck, even I've got a perm banned account and I can't be classed as a rule-breaker can I :P
Can never be sure, if they gave you your old account back merged in to this, you may suddenly start breaking all the rules again :p

Obviously the old banned account is the only thing keeping you in line - at least, that seems to be the logic behind the perm ban idea as far as i can tell :p

[Nixt]

And Garion my love, your reply to #6 isn't valid, you're talking to Mentor who has got a perm ban on his old account, yet he's been back for ages and isn't a "serial rule breaker" or "contactly breaking a rule or group of rules" ;) Generalising is the devil's lover ;)

My reply to six has an OR, not necessarily serial rule breakers but someone has broken a small number of rules that combined are extremely serious or one or two serious offences that justify a ban. Admittedly it wasn't very clear babes!

[FlyingJesus]

I was perm banned once but I tricked everyone into unbanning me was innocent so got unbanned after explaining things

[Robbie]

I could unban my old account now but I'd probably get fired for doing it without permission - plus I wouldn't be an Smod on there. I can't really moan though, looking through the Unacceptable Posts archives, my ban was justified (however some others involved were unbanned) - would just be nice to have it unbanned :P

[GommeInc]

Have the two merged, simple :D

[Mentor]

My reply to six has an OR, not necessarily serial rule breakers but someone has broken a small number of rules that combined are extremely serious or one or two serious offences that justify a ban. Admittedly it wasn't very clear babes!

If the rules i broke were so serious how come i'm still a trusted member and have managed to work my way up in to habbox a good few times? Same with Robbie!, if what he did was so unacceptably bad it meant he should be banned for literally ever. how come hes a trusted and liked super mod now?
Same is true of many of members to, the reason simply being that the perms are often over the top reactions given in the heat of the moment. I've had plenty of bans overturned on this kind of subject (to the point not even a warning was what would have been acceptable, never loan a infraction or the ban i actually got)

Another proof of this is the reasons some people have, wootzy for example has a lovely

You have been banned for the following reason:

No reason was specified.



Date the ban will be lifted: Never

Which to me implies a few things about how well though out the ban really was.

Myself though, unlike Robbie! cant go look at the unacceptable posts archive, so can never really be sure how bad what i said was. I may have said some stuff in the heat of the moment, the other party i bet did to, but since they had the ban rights, i got a perm and they got off scott free.

P.S: after being warned by gomminc this thread may be closed for discussing ban reasons, i want to point out "No reason was specified." by its own admission isnt a reason so should be immune :p

[Mrs.McCall]

I understand what you're saying here but why is it so important to you to have the accounts merged? Just because the rules have changed since you received your perm ban doesn't mean that it should be undone. At the time you were permed, you were permed with good reason.

Yes, you are now a respected and rule-keeping member of the community but that's the equivalent of allowing Osama Bin Laden to be taken off the wanted list if he suddenly starts giving money to charity and opens an anti-terrorism centre (I am in no way calling you a terrorist here).

Does your old account still exist? Correct me if I am wrong but didn't they delete like tons of unused accounts?

Either way, I think by allowing this it'll just cause an administrative headache and a rather pointless exercise.

[Catzsy]

If the rules i broke were so serious how come i'm still a trusted member and have managed to work my way up in to habbox a good few times? Same with Robbie!, if what he did was so unacceptably bad it meant he should be banned for literally ever. how come hes a trusted and liked super mod now?
Same is true of many of members to, the reason simply being that the perms are often over the top reactions given in the heat of the moment. I've had plenty of bans overturned on this kind of subject (to the point not even a warning was what would have been acceptable, never loan a infraction or the ban i actually got)

Another proof of this is the reasons some people have, wootzy for example has a lovely

Which to me implies a few things about how well though out the ban really was.

Myself though, unlike Robbie! cant go look at the unacceptable posts archive, so can never really be sure how bad what i said was. I may have said some stuff in the heat of the moment, the other party i bet did to, but since they had the ban rights, i got a perm and they got off scott free.

P.S: after being warned by gomminc this thread may be closed for discussing ban reasons, i want to point out "No reason was specified." by its own admission isnt a reason so should be immune :p

I think nvr did say to send him a pm about your old account and I am sure Wootzeh could do the say when he comes back in respect of wootzy. I am sure nvr will deal with them on their individual merits. :P

[Mrs.McCall]

I think nvr did say to send him a pm about your old account and I am sure Wootzeh could do the say when he comes back in respect of wootzy. I am sure nvr will deal with them on their individual merits. :P

If he does it for one, then he'll have to do it for all. I think it'd be ridiculous. Bans are put in place for a reason and yes, things may of changed but I think they should still count.

[Catzsy]

If he does it for one, then he'll have to do it for all. I think it'd be ridiculous. Bans are put in place for a reason and yes, things may of changed but I think they should still count.

Well that is not quite true - depends on the reason for the original ban. :)

[Mrs.McCall]

Well that is not quite true - depends on the reason for the original ban. :)

So you're saying that some bans may be for no reason? :O That's a scandal within itself.

[Catzsy]

So you're saying that some bans may be for no reason? :O That's a scandal within itself.

No I am not saying that. :P

[Mrs.McCall]

No I am not saying that. :P

As Mentor has pointed out as well, some ban reasons may be unspecified. That doesn't mean there wasn't a reason. So it could mean some unfair unbans or if Nvr had to investigate the original ban it could stem back months! It'd be a huge task.

[Mentor]

I understand what you're saying here but why is it so important to you to have the accounts merged? Just because the rules have changed since you received your perm ban doesn't mean that it should be undone. At the time you were permed, you were permed with good reason.
I dont think i was banned for a reason that was even acceptable at the time, my ban was only upheld because of who it was that banned me (who later lied and claimed it wasn't till krewz posted the list after a hacking that included the record)

Equally if rules change, there is a reason. Same as with laws, or are you claiming any homosexuals jailed at times when it was illegal should have been made to stay in jail even after the law was repealed? Examples a little different, but point remains that, if a rule is removed because the rule is unjust, enforcing an unjust rule isnt really a good idea


Yes, you are now a respected and rule-keeping member of the community but that's the equivalent of allowing Osama Bin Laden to be taken off the wanted list if he suddenly starts giving money to charity and opens an anti-terrorism centre (I am in no way calling you a terrorist here).
Not quite the same was ai was a respected rule abiding member then. I was actually a manager at the beginning of the conflict, a position i managed to get as people respected me for holding my side and not being afraid to disagree with people. Incidently the same things i got banned for.
Even after than ban, habbox still trusted me enough to put me in manager/moderator and other positions again in the times after.

So despite supposedly being so bad it required a ban for life, it doesn't appear anyone though any less of me for it, as in to most members and staff what i was banned for obviously wasnt a big deal at all?



Does your old account still exist? Correct me if I am wrong but didn't they delete like tons of unused accounts?
Yea, as far as i know, they never remove them. Wootzys account is member 37 or somthing if i remember rightly and thats still here :p


Catzsy : cool, i will do so :) That or msg him when hes online :)



As Mentor has pointed out as well, some ban reasons may be unspecified. That doesn't mean there wasn't a reason. So it could mean some unfair unbans or if Nvr had to investigate the original ban it could stem back months! It'd be a huge task.
If a ban is given without reason, i really think it should just be removed point blank. I think for a mod to do so its actually against the rules, it just makes it look like it was an out of spite move and they couldnt come up with even a wishy washy attempt at a justification for the move

[Mrs.McCall]

I accept your point but you must admit that if he allows it for you and Wootzeh it'll open the floodgates...

Good luck with it though.

[Catzsy]

As Mentor has pointed out as well, some ban reasons may be unspecified. That doesn't mean there wasn't a reason. So it could mean some unfair unbans or if Nvr had to investigate the original ban it could stem back months! It'd be a huge task.

Joey, this is what nvr replied to Mentor in the other thread.

I disagree. Mostly because I can see where you are coming from, but your ban was an extraordinary circumstance. I understand how you feel and I will look further into the situation however few have the same situation.

I don't agree that the banned people should be allowed to have the VIP as the VIP is also an acknowledgement of people who have always tried to help Habbox constructively and thus not gotten banned. Or at least have been good enough not to get permed. There are some on the outlying edges who got shafted, I can think of at least one other person whose account got deleted (no not Mizki) but those are by far in the minority. That being said, I'll see what I can do about that.

I think it pretty much says it all. :)

[Mentor]

I accept your point but you must admit that if he allows it for you and Wootzeh it'll open the floodgates...

Good luck with it though.

It is one of the big advantages of the amnesty idea, if your granting amnesty it isnt necessarily needed to investigate the rule breakages. The fact a member is still around after say 3 years and is still an overall positive influence is really all thats needed to be known.
Having the accounts merged if anything will just make those who get the amnesty more careful about rule abiding out of fear they may loose both accounts (aka everything again)

All thats needed is for members who would like it to put there name forward, maybe for a one time thing in this year, or maybe next 2 or 3 years even. And get there old old accounts merged with there new ones.

So the work load with this idea is far less than a lot of individual investigations, and has less of a downside to it in terms of opening a flood gate. The only real issue could be with people proving they own a certain old account, which could be varied by simply asking the user to log in to the old account first (possibly change the ban reason to a password for them to repeate or just check for an updated last logged in time stamp)
:)

Catzsy: I agree, theirs reason i think nvrspk4 is one of the best GM habbox has had :)

[scottish]

Can't be bothered reading all the thread but yeh i agree;

my first account was banned for 1 violation (now it takes about 10 for a ban?); also have the reason



You have been banned for the following reason:

No reason was specified.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

Please note that when cautioned or temporary autobanned you are NOT permitted to create a new account for the period of the caution/temporary autoban. Doing so will result in an extension of the punishment.

If you wish to appeal your ban please use the Support Tool. Ban appeals must be made within one week of the ban date. Ban appeals are not to be made via PM or in posts/threads.

which was banned in 04 or 05. o.0

[lick]

i asked nvr for my accounts to be merged last week and he was having none of it :(

[Mrs.McCall]

Hmm, perhaps members who have had bans on other accounts but have stayed for 3 years do deserve them back as a reward. I am still unsure on this, though. I don't see why you want them back if you've established yourself on your current username.

I cannot comment on ban reasons because I don't know the circumstances of your ban but it sounds as if you were unfairly treated so in that case, the ban would be unfair anyway and should be overturned on that principle.

[lick]

Hmm, perhaps members who have had bans on other accounts but have stayed for 3 years do deserve them back as a reward. I am still unsure on this, though. I don't see why you want them back if you've established yourself on your current username.

I cannot comment on ban reasons because I don't know the circumstances of your ban but it sounds as if you were unfairly treated so in that case, the ban would be unfair anyway and should be overturned on that principle.

i think they want them merged therfore having all there old rep join date and post but keeping the username

[Mentor]

Hmm, perhaps members who have had bans on other accounts but have stayed for 3 years do deserve them back as a reward. I am still unsure on this, though. I don't see why you want them back if you've established yourself on your current username.

I cannot comment on ban reasons because I don't know the circumstances of your ban but it sounds as if you were unfairly treated so in that case, the ban would be unfair anyway and should be overturned on that principle.
Ideally it would be nice to have the two accounts merged, so i can look back through my posts when i needed too and just had everything in one place.

Also, since it is from us theres probs quite a bit of bias in the storys :p But i do think there is something there in a number of them, and an amnesty in my view has no real downside.

Plus I wouldn't say an award, but i getting out early for good behavior (getting are accounts back and maybe merged) would be great :p

[GommeInc]

The main reason for having accounts merged is so that the join date is updated to show when the person (not the member/account) joined and all posts made by the two accounts are merged together, so that accumulative post counts and rep are added together. I'm sure Mentor has earned it afterall, and anyone else who is a long serving member that has been given odd ban reasons ;)

[Robbie]

I believe the song Acquiesce by Oasis is the perfect soundtrack to this thread. And yeah, MENTOR4MERGE campaign!

[Skajo]

I want my original one back :D

[Nemo]

Hell i got banned because of one anger thread which wasnt even that bad :( didnt have any infractions and never got cautioned :<

Ive been a good boy, even since i got banned. No infractions ftw!

[Mentor]

Quite a few members do seem to be in a simlar boat to me with their original accounts having been banned without good reason sometime in the past. So i really do think the amnesty idea could give a nice boost to forum moral :)

[The Professor]

Apologies to everyone who took the time to post long, constructive posts, I just really can't be bothered to read it because it'd take me about half an hour :P I have scanned through most of them but sorry if i repeat something anyway!


Hell i got banned because of one anger thread which wasnt even that bad :( didnt have any infractions and never got cautioned :<

Ive been a good boy, even since i got banned. No infractions ftw!

I think that this is an example of why old bans should be looked into. I don't wholeheartly agree with Mentor on the point that all people with permed accounts who are still on the forum deserve their account back for that reason because both as a normal member and as an smod/FM, its easy to see patterns of persistent bad behaviour in people and rewarding them with an unbanning would send out completely the wrong message.

I believe NaughtyNemo's ban was for that thread about the anime section and how he was angry about it being ignored (please correct me if I'm wrong!). That was around the time the whole forum was baiting MAD for firing catzsy and other funky stuff and he banned him in anger. In situations like that (and in response to joey's point about if you should do it for one,you should do it to all) its clear the person who banned him wasn't being objective. Of course, because of HxF's policy of not reviewing bans after a week/fortnight (i forget), it can't be reviewed and reversed.

I think that's where the root of the problem lies. In special circumstances bans are issued that wouldn't be in other situations and are clearly unfair or harsh to everyone except the person banning. With a change of forum manager/general manager, if the case was to be reviewed it would be done so objectively and the account would most likely be returned. I believe that should happen, on request, judged on a case by case basis. All evidence is recorded somewhere internally so it shouldn't be difficult to asses cases :)

Offtopic: I'm going to learn to write in shorter sentences. Some of those sentences confused me, idk about anyone else :P

[Mentor]

I think that this is an example of why old bans should be looked into. I don't wholeheartly agree with Mentor on the point that all people with permed accounts who are still on the forum deserve their account back for that reason because both as a normal member and as an smod/FM, its easy to see patterns of persistent bad behaviour in people and rewarding them with an unbanning would send out completely the wrong message.
I would disagree, we are rewarding people who in the past may have broken someone rules (not always even that) but do not do so any more. If a member is persistently bad to an extent its a problem, then you would expect they would have been banned again, if its been say 3 years since there last ban, this is a demonstration they obviously are not breaking rules persistently anymore.

So i dont think that issue is necessarily a problem. Equally by giving someone an account back, you make it less likely they will break rules in future by merit that they do not want to loose said account again.


I believe NaughtyNemo's ban was for that thread about the anime section and how he was angry about it being ignored (please correct me if I'm wrong!). That was around the time the whole forum was baiting MAD for firing catzsy and other funky stuff and he banned him in anger. In situations like that (and in response to joey's point about if you should do it for one,you should do it to all) its clear the person who banned him wasn't being objective. Of course, because of HxF's policy of not reviewing bans after a week/fortnight (i forget), it can't be reviewed and reversed.anymore

I think that's where the root of the problem lies. In special circumstances bans are issued that wouldn't be in other situations and are clearly unfair or harsh to everyone except the person banning. With a change of forum manager/general manager, if the case was to be reviewed it would be done so objectively and the account would most likely be returned. I believe that should happen, on request, judged on a case by case basis. All evidence is recorded somewhere internally so it shouldn't be difficult to asses cases :)

I agree with much of this, the appeals time limit on bans shouldn't exist. Although it may take time to look in to them, its worth it as unfair bans can be overturned and people arnt forced to live with a punishment they do not deserve.

Also to the evidence bit, the evidence behind my own ban appears to have been deleted (had information some people didn't want others to read), so i'm not sure what that will mean for any appeal from myself "/

[nvrspk4]

I think I may have a partial solution. I believe that Mentor and possibly wootzy/NaughtyNemo among others have a case about their ban. Thus the amnesty would be good for them because it would allow them to get back from the supposedly unfair bans of the past. However I don't think they're representative cases of the suggestion being made here. I think you have to look at someone who was banned fairly and is now looking to come back.

I am against the idea proposed for a couple of reasons, and one of the most important on a personal level is that over the five years I've been here how the punishments meant less and less. And I see it on a real life level too. Not sure what you have in terms of school but here we have something called a Board of Education which is elected members of the community who are the ultimate level of school policy. And in my school system an F means an F only if you don't have a parent who wants to fight. If your parent wants to moan they will get their way and get a C you don't deserve. In our prison system you get a life sentence and you get out in 20 years.

At HabboxForum the same pattern has gone on. Let me give you an example. At one point the rules brooked no nonsense. The annoying prats were banned and some people who took good fun too far were as well. The community was fine and yes there were controversial bans from time to time but there will always be controversy. Then the rules got more lenient, and more rulebreaking was accepted, the level of behavior deteriorated because people believe they can be bad "to a point" until they got banned. Then infractions came out and were first permanant. Then it was decided that that was too much and the time was reduced (more than once I believe). Then we decided to delete all the infractions and erase all the records so it was "you can insult people 9 times just make sure you wait 3 months before doing it again!" My point being that punishments can be argued away down the road.

I'm a firm believer in accepting consequences for your actions. Yes, you may get a second chance. Yes, someone may forgive you. But I don't think you ever truly erase the impact of the decisions you made and I think that is also something that helps to stop you from making those same mistakes in the future.

Ok enough being philosophical, my point is I think perm bans are permanant for a reason and people should have to deal with that and move on. Losing the things they worked for sucks but they can still get most of it back. I think the reward for good behavior is having your new account and getting to use that and gain repute on that etc.


So to grant amnesty to members who have had accounts ban's i think the issues that need to be proven are:
A) The punishment given did not fit the misdeed, was unfair and essentially unjust.
B) The punishment itself has no value. Punishing people just to punish them is just somewhat sadistic. A punishment only holds value IF it works as both a deterrent to other members and stops members who have received it from breaking rules again.

The above are my two points on "punishment and its effectiveness" as nvrspk puts it :)

A) I think that's basically a ban appeal.
B) I don't think anyone was punished just to be punished, you usually do something to get punishment, the question is whether its fair or not. However if you're contending that a permanant ban is useless because the user now has nothing to lose, I disagree. Users may go erebel for a little bit but eventually they will probably want to return to the community, and try to build up reputation and influence. (A reputation not the green blocks, but in some cases that too). If they don't and want to be disruptive, they won't be welcomed to return and will be put on autoban.


Nvrspk4: In the case of proving how long they've been a member, that is essentially a part of the punishment. They've lost the benefits of the old account, established name, old join date, high post count.

So yes, that is a punishment that will act as a deterrent and maybe make other members think twice about breaking rules again (Although this second point i'm not sure is ever true)

With the group i refer to though, i think nether point still holds up.

The group you refer to is once again not the best example because they're in a special circumstance. But I think they will behave, simply because they're not two year olds :P


First off, loosing your account for a year on a forum like habbox, or most members who will likely never stay on that long is probably about as effective as a deterrent can get, 3-4-5 years? I think for a forum at least, that is the longest sentence people should ever really get and is far longer than the average lifespan of many users forum user's. In essence a perm ban is much the say as 3 year would be to most members, and when looked at is somewhat a jump. Theres a very big difference between a week ban, and all of entirety. Maybe a few more punishment levels should get added in the middle as the perm idea is kind of ridiculous.

Losing your account for a year, however, gives you a year to screw around. In that year, do you really care about your other accounts? No, why not get banned as you wait for your other account to be unbanned? Its like a free pass to get out of trouble. Perhaps then extend that user's ban? But then we come full circle, back to the permanant ban.


This long ago, many of the rules were different, you could get permed for giving out an email or msn address for example. So the reasons for ban's then although correct in there own time, are things that have changed as the forum has progressed, why should we maintain a ban on doing something, that now, we think they should have every right to do?

The bigger difference than the rules themselves would be the level of rulebreaking. We weren't so ridiculously enabling in the past and every ban would have to be reviewed and put to a microscope to see if it survived the leniency of today's moderation system.


On to my main point of why bans like these do not stop members re offending, i think can be shown best from your own description of punishment. Once a user has lost there post count, rep, posts and everything else. They have nothing to loose, no reason to worry about getting banned again.
Some will come back and spam, break the rules even more etc, before just getting banned again a few more times. Others though, come back and continue to use the forum.. why?

Because those ones, even when they have no reason to fear a ban as they have nothing they can loose, enjoy the forum are a positive influence. They were not out there to break rules, else they would be doing so even more afterwards. Most were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, or disagreed with someone who was on a power trip.

You make a fair point however I don't think it always plays out like that. Some people come back angry yes but they still want to be a part of the community. They want to continue to wield influence and have their name recognized. For example, a person who uses the RuneScape forums would like to be known as trusted, not known as the guy who was trusted on another account that was banned. Also, with the new userrank system bronze members have fewer permissions so there is incentive to keep the account. Many would be loath to give away their ability to see who repped them :P


The type that were banned for the unjust reasons, and dont have a history of malicious rule breaking (were not breaking rules on purpose), they are the type of members, than 3-4 years later are still on this forum, often not having been banned again. Its only after 3-4 years they even have anything to loose. If they got there accounts merge, what they have to loose would almost double meaning some may even be more careful about obaying rules due to the threat of looseing so much.

I think that most of those members may have recieved bans that were questionable but some fair some not. My one issue with it is opening up the closet and digging up all the skeletons isn't moving forward. There are some bans, for example, that were improperly documented but more than fair. As someone who has used the moderation system for a long time, I would also like the security of knowing the pedofile who I banned as he was child grooming will not succeed in his appeals with the next GM. That's just one example.


I can imagine no way in which, by giving someone there old account back, you would encourage any additional rule breaking at all.
If someone got there account back, after a number of years, merged with the current. The threat of loosing it all a gain grows massively. It also means members who were recently permed have hope, so dont need to just randomly attack and **** off the forum.

How is any of that a bad thing?

However the idea remains that now punishment isn't permanant and you can now stretch the rules because there's always redemption, you can always completely erase any consequence of your past actions :P



1)many perms are for rules that were removed(for a reason)
2) a perm is no different to a few years in terms of a deterrent
3) a perm tells members they lost everything for good so have nothing to loose. This encourages rule breaking, not deters it.
4) getting a permed account back, means members will be more likely to abide by rules for fear of loosing it again.
5) Changing perm to 4 years for example, means even with such a long ban, members who are planning to be around for a while, still have a reason to be good. The idea good behaviors may get them unbanned sooner would also likely increase there likelihood of rule abiding in further even more.
6) Perm bans as shown from the prior points, are a lot less effective at getting members to reform than non permanent ones. Encourage permed members to break more rules as opposed to being good in the hopes of regaining there account and generally as far as i can see have no upside.

1) Skeletons, closet, and also varying severity. Every time we change the rules or accept different levels of leniency to have to readjust all previous bans to conform to current standards would be a logistical nightmare.

2) It is because you can do whatever you want in those few years then.

3) However a member has something to gain by keeping the next account. They might not have as much as they did on their first account, but they will have more than they would if they were constantly banned.

4) But it also reinforces the idea that you can bend the rules because if you mess up you can get it all back.

5) To have to monitor the behavior of each and every banned member over even a three month period would be a nightmare.

6) I disagree, from moderative experience the people who get temp bans continue to push the rules, there are the serial rulebreakers who get perm bans a lot however there are quite a few who get the perm ban, get angry, and settle down.


To end it all, whatever happens with this i will say, i think nvrspk is one of the best GM's habboxforum has ever had. Proof of this is the fact this thread has not been removed and i have not been banned for creating it. Nvrspk unlike many GM's in the past will discuss his view and argue his side fairly, without just abusing his own powers :)

I appreciate that a lot :)


I agree entirely. Perm bans are HabboxForums most pointless creations - it's not a deterrent, just means a new account should and can be created.

A forum account is just a means by which a person can communicate with others, by taking that away you still have the person behind it, and that's what is the main argument here is. The person behind the account may change in time to be more mature towards forum rules or the forum rules change to follow common sense and basic reasoning (or just avoid them *cough*).

So the reason for a banned account may become pointless if the person behind the account has a new one and is acting just the same or a little bit more sensible - so why not give them their old account back, which proves:

-How long that person has been a member.
-How many posts have been contributed to the forum by that person.

Keeping them banned seems to prove nothing, other than a forum likes wasting space and enjoys their lines through names.

Of course, there will need to be a system in place to determine which people deserve which accounts merged with their current accounts (Mentor managed to have his account renamed, which is pointless, may as well give him back the whole account and merge it). From what I can see, a one year/two year margin is enough, preferably the former rather than the latter. In my experience, after someone has created a new account and have followed the rules, they should be given their full account back - you've let them return, they've behaved, the previous "perm ban" is deemed invalid. Period.

And Garion my love, your reply to #6 isn't valid, you're talking to Mentor who has got a perm ban on his old account, yet he's been back for ages and isn't a "serial rule breaker" or "contactly breaking a rule or group of rules" ;) Generalising is the devil's lover ;)

Actually, this system would be a little more strict than what I was suggesting. I was going to say those who never really got a chance to appeal would maybe (theoretically if I could figure out a way to do it without creating the problems we sought to avoid) get a chance to get the ban invalidated. Here they would have to get the old ban invalidated and have been good for a year. So valid permanant bans would stand? Or perhaps I misunderstood that entirely.


Can't be bothered reading all the thread but yeh i agree;

my first account was banned for 1 violation (now it takes about 10 for a ban?); also have the reason

which was banned in 04 or 05. o.0

Sorry to burst your bubble but you would not be eligible for amnesty :P


The main reason for having accounts merged is so that the join date is updated to show when the person (not the member/account) joined and all posts made by the two accounts are merged together, so that accumulative post counts and rep are added together. I'm sure Mentor has earned it afterall, and anyone else who is a long serving member that has been given odd ban reasons ;)

And that's why I think its an effective deterrent in most cases. I once again object to being proved wrong with the Mentor example because I think its an atypical case :P But if everyone was in Mentor's situation I think you could argue the point quite successfully.


Hell i got banned because of one anger thread which wasnt even that bad :( didnt have any infractions and never got cautioned :<

Ive been a good boy, even since i got banned. No infractions ftw!

If we ever introduced amnesty, this would be the type of candidate probably. Though I'm hoping it wasn't JUST one thread or if it was it was a VERY bad thread. I have banned people for one or two actions before but they were very very bad actions and I would stand by them still. It went beyond breaking HxF rules


Quite a few members do seem to be in a simlar boat to me with their original accounts having been banned without good reason sometime in the past. So i really do think the amnesty idea could give a nice boost to forum moral :)

I think there are probably like five :P I think introducing amnesty for five, even twenty users now would have repercussions for many more that weren't targeted by the original plan. There are other ways to get around it, like the idea I suggested of revamping the rules on what bans can be appealed, using different methods to keep in place what we're trying to do with the current rules while allowing old unfair bans to be appealed that never got a shot.


EDIT: Now THESE are the posts I'm known for :P

[AgnesIO]

getting a permed account back, means members will be more likely to abide by rules for fear of loosing it again.


Not so sure on this one. Most members that get permed are permed for a REASON. Therefore they should not be unbanned.

Obviously that is not the case for all but for most it is.

---

[GoldenMerc]

So some people will be getting unbanned Percy?

[today]

My orginal account was banned year's ago, and i'm still around to this day - and well yeah, i want it back. ;]

[Nemo]

If we ever introduced amnesty, this would be the type of candidate probably. Though I'm hoping it wasn't JUST one thread or if it was it was a VERY bad thread. I have banned people for one or two actions before but they were very very bad actions and I would stand by them still. It went beyond breaking HxF rules
Well from what i saw, it was just one thread, apparently constant hate or something along the lines of that ;p

[scottish]

Sorry to burst your bubble but you would not be eligible for amnesty :P


Can't say i didn't try. ;)

[today]

Nvrspk4, would i be eligible for amnesty. <3

[Immenseman]

I don't understand how you can single out the case of Wootzeh when even now his account is constantly cautioned and is a prolific rule breaker. I don't really care what happens but you can't say Scott isn't eligible and Wootzeh is :S

[today]

I don't understand it either as Wootzy get's banned more then Scott does but i guess Wootzy is more of a 'valued' member then Scott?

[Immenseman]

i wouldn't say either of them are valued to be quite honest with you.

[today]

i wouldn't say either of them are valued to be quite honest with you.
Oh jakeee, i love your honesty x

[scottish]

I'm probably not eligible due to my 400 banned accounts?

o.0

even though i've only ever had 1 warning on this account :P

[lick]

i got banned for something that happened off the forum, and when i asked to see the rule it was a rule saying you can ban me for no reason.

so can i get unbanned :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

I will appeal mine soon, I was banned under the past forum management under a rule which did not exist at that time and despite my account having a clean record. I think maybe someone should start looking over ban appeals this summer with older members and common sense should be applied, so i'm for something to be done about it. :)

[Robbie]

i got banned for something that happened off the forum, and when i asked to see the rule it was a rule saying you can ban me for no reason.

so can i get unbanned :P

Terms and Conditions:


You give us the right (WITHOUT ANY PRIOR NOTICE) to edit, caution, temporarily ban or permanently ban, as well as your IP, or take any other measurements that we feel necessary.



The Administrators of habboxforum.com may terminate/remove/transfer/modify/limit your service at any time without notice.

[GoldenMerc]

Terms and Conditions:
Yeh but still, obviously thats last resort.

[Mrs.McCall]

See now you're going to have people enquiring if they're eligible. When they probably know they're not.

It's a catch 22 because some people [like Mentor] probably deserve to have their accounts merged so in that case it's good but then if you've done it for him, you'll have to investigate others to see if their eligible. It might just open a huge can of worms.

[Robbie]

If it was me, I'd contact the select few directly and do it discreetly and ask not to be contacted regarding it.

[Mentor]

Wow... thats a serious post nvr :O

Rather than respond to all of it i really wana just grab at what i think are key points of difference :)



At HabboxForum the same pattern has gone on. Let me give you an example. At one point the rules brooked no nonsense. The annoying prats were banned and some people who took good fun too far were as well. The community was fine and yes there were controversial bans from time to time but there will always be controversy. Then the rules got more lenient, and more rulebreaking was accepted, the level of behavior deteriorated because people believe they can be bad "to a point" until they got banned. Then infractions came out and were first permanent. Then it was decided that that was too much and the time was reduced (more than once I believe). Then we decided to delete all the infractions and erase all the records so it was "you can insult people 9 times just make sure you wait 3 months before doing it again!" My point being that punishments can be argued away down the road.
I disagree with this progression as it doesn't fit with my own experience. The difference isnt in how harsh or strict the rules are, its in how they were in-forced.

Unlike now, habboxforum in the past was far more informal with mods who had much more power than they do today. Mods were given alot more power in terms of chooseing how to deal with rule breaking and when to do so. Rules could be in-forced where appropriate and people let off were not, lenient in some cases, harsh in others. They could adjust the response to the situation.

JackHB/seatcats being some the last of this lot, after this the same rules were set in stone, mods had to enforce them, every time, strictly. Although the rules were the same, without the mods chooseing their appropriate enforcement was far harsher and often very unfair. This is why the rules were made more leniant so that this unfairness was reduced. So overall i would say the forum is still more strict now than i was there, what may now be a temp ban could have just been a i <3 jack stuck in your usertitle for a month.

So i would disagree habbox has become more lenient, id just say the culture has changed but the net result is the same. Habbox has grown so its methods have changes "/


Losing your account for a year, however, gives you a year to screw around. In that year, do you really care about your other accounts? No, why not get banned as you wait for your other account to be unbanned? Its like a free pass to get out of trouble. Perhaps then extend that user's ban? But then we come full circle, back to the permanant ban.
The amnesty idea was based on the idea in order to qualify the member would have to have been a positive influence on the forum, so if they did just muck around they would not get the old account back at all.
So the situation really cant arise, amnesty is only avaible to members who improved after all, if they dont, then they dont get the account back. o.0


However the idea remains that now punishment isn't permanant and you can now stretch the rules because there's always redemption, you can always completely erase any consequence of your past actions
Which i dont think is necessarily bad, i dont hold grudges for life, i dont think people should be forced to suffer simply because they made a mistake in there past. People should be given a second chance, a 3rd maybe not. But a second at the very least.


1) Skeletons, closet, and also varying severity. Every time we change the rules or accept different levels of leniency to have to readjust all previous bans to conform to current standards would be a logistical nightmare.

2) It is because you can do whatever you want in those few years then.

3) However a member has something to gain by keeping the next account. They might not have as much as they did on their first account, but they will have more than they would if they were constantly banned.

4) But it also reinforces the idea that you can bend the rules because if you mess up you can get it all back.

5) To have to monitor the behavior of each and every banned member over even a three month period would be a nightmare.

6) I disagree, from moderative experience the people who get temp bans continue to push the rules, there are the serial rulebreakers who get perm bans a lot however there are quite a few who get the perm ban, get angry, and settle down
1) fair point, but only in the case of members that appeal
2) as i previously said, this is not the case. If they do not improve there behavior they do not qualify to get their account back
3) i dont really follow. Having both accounts merged means the new account is worth more than both, so the member will be very protective of looseing it, ether if it be for another 3 years - or simply applying a second chance only approach (no 3rd chances) you can equally make new account even more valued to the member.
4) Your still looseing an account for say 3 years - you can get it all back maybe, but 3 years for a forum is an major punishment ether way.
5) When they apply for unbanning, check there notes, infractions etc, if they aint done much wrong at all then they apply. You only have to check for the accounts that want unbanning. With a 3 year's required before you can apply very few members would be able to anyway.
6) for those who do settle down, the chance to get there old account back isnt necessarily a bad thing?


And that's why I think its an effective deterrent in most cases. I once again object to being proved wrong with the Mentor example because I think its an atypical case But if everyone was in Mentor's situation I think you could argue the point quite successfully.
There should still be a process to deal with atypical case's, its unfair for some people to fall for the cracks. I'm still not convinced im in a unique situation, i know many who were banned in similar circumstances to myself, although the majority never did return to the forum.

[Skajo]

In all honesty, my account was made nearly 4 years ago. When I was 13. I think I did a lot of growing up since ;). I imagine this is the same with most members that had their accounts banned a long time ago.

I'm not particularly bothered but it would be nice to reward the money I've given to Habbox over the years and my time (with numerous jobs etc) and helping the community stablise and grow. That's just my opinion.

[today]

In all honesty, my account was made nearly 4 years ago. When I was 13. I think I did a lot of growing up since ;). I imagine this is the same with most members that had their accounts banned a long time ago.

I'm not particularly bothered but it would be nice to reward the money I've given to Habbox over the years and my time (with numerous jobs etc) and helping the community stablise and grow. That's just my opinion.
Couldn't agree more with you Adam, alot of users back in 04/05 time was extremely younger then they are now thus certain posts and actions were taken and resulted in bans however alot of them have grown up since and seriously don't act like they used to, which i think having a 4 year ban at least is considered enough time to think what they did wrong.

[Dentafrice]

I agree with this, I have my other account I'd like to merge, my join date, etc.

[Skajo]

I wouldn't say 3. I'd limit bans to 2 years max, if I was to implement a new punishment scheme. Considering this is a teen forum, a teen can do a hell of a lot of maturing through 2 years in any stage of puberty. This is hypothetical and won't get implemented at all however I do believe it would be a popular addition with most members and a somewhat rewarding one with 'prolific', 'high profile' members with banned accounts from some time ago.

I do see however, why you wouldn't want to implement it because of some anomalies ala Greco, Pleke etc etc. That the rest of my $.02

[N!ck]

I think the moral of the story is don't be a badass and get your account(s) banned.

Although, I do believe in rehabilitation, so I think that members of a certain age, let's say more than 3 years should be allowed their current account merged with 1 (one) previously banned account. This is because ok, you make a pigs ear of one account when you're young, fair enough, but if you're getting permed on multiple accounts then you're not learning.

[Mentor]

Ok, for people questioning who should get this, i've had this set of criteria suggested to me :)


1)Only accounts that were at least one year old at least at the time of the ban should be considered for amnesty.
2)All rep should be removed from banned account, before a merge is considered, and the account it's being merged with must be one of good behaviour.
3)Definetely no third chances.

What do people think of somthing along these lines being the requirements for getting an old account unbanned and merged in to your current? To harsh, not harsh enough?

Personally i think it sounds fair, though i take the no 3rd chances bit to mean, you only get one shot of a unban and merge, if that goes, then you have lost the account for good.

[Immenseman]

Yeah, I'm not all too bothered whether some members get this or not. However, I am quite against people who still rule break now getting their old accounts unbanned merely because they're still active.

[N!ck]

Ok, for people questioning who should get this, i've had this set of criteria suggested to me :)



What do people think of somthing along these lines being the requirements for getting an old account unbanned and merged in to your current? To harsh, not harsh enough?

Personally i think it sounds fair, though i take the no 3rd chances bit to mean, you only get one shot of a unban and merge, if that goes, then you have lost the account for good.

No; you screw up once, fair enough. Screw up twice and tough ****. It's an online forum fgs, why do you need to be badass online?

I agree with your criteria.

[Mentor]

No; you screw up once, fair enough. Screw up twice and tough ****. It's an online forum fgs, why do you need to be badass online?

I agree with your criteria.
The no really makes it sound like you disagreed so i was kinda surprised to read on and see you did agree lol :p

To be fair, some members were here then they were like 13, immature and stupid etc. They got in trouble, after 4 years they will have done alot of maturing so giving some of these people a second chance is a pretty fair thing to do :)

[Skajo]

1)Only accounts that were at least one year old at least at the time of the ban should be considered for amnesty.
Well that sucks, my account was 362 days old.

[N!ck]

The no really makes it sound like you disagreed so i was kinda surprised to read on and see you did agree lol :p

To be fair, some members were here then they were like 13, immature and stupid etc. They got in trouble, after 4 years they will have done alot of maturing so giving some of these people a second chance is a pretty fair thing to do :)

Yeah, I edited in the I agree part at the end for that reason. The no was to the bit about you being mean :P.

[Mentor]

Well that sucks, my account was 362 days old.

This is just a suggestion, 6 months, 9 months, 361 days are all possible limit ideas. Its just deciding where is a fair place to draw the line.

Equally this suggestion is just a suggestion, we still need to see what nvrspk4 thinks on the idea before anything can happen :)

[GoldenMerc]

bye bye all of goldenmerc rep lol
but then i get 13k posts

[Wootzeh]

so hi, hopefully I can get my permed account unbanned an this account merged into it, it got permed around 4years and 4motnhs ago so I can't remember why it was banned, there is no reason specified. It was also the first account to get 2green rep bars :8

and Jake I don't break rules on purpose, I'm just misunderstood by moderators.

[Immenseman]

being misunderstood isn't being cautioned 2/3 times.

[Catzsy]

Yeah, I'm not all too bothered whether some members get this or not. However, I am quite against people who still rule break now getting their old accounts unbanned merely because they're still active.

I cannot see that happening.

[Wootzeh]

being misunderstood isn't being cautioned 2/3 times.
moderators are not allowed to see the funny side of things. ah well, the rest of the forum misses out on my amazing posts.

[Dentafrice]

moderators are not allowed to see the funny side of things. ah well, the rest of the forum misses out on my amazing posts.
I still love you.

[Blinger1]

You all just want the post count which results in a bigger e-penis.

Why do you need a second chance? You have made a new account, just get on with it.

[Skajo]

You all just want the post count which results in a bigger e-penis.
You've hit the nail on the shaft right there.

[nvrspk4]

I think the better idea would be to open the door to a single appeal for old account bans that were improperly issued. The problem I have with amnesty is what I've observed with Habbox is as time goes on, once someone takes the step of introducing it, the qualifications are slowly battered down until they become ridiculous. I don't want to implement the amnesty thing because I think the requirements will be knocked down and down the road Habbox will suffer for it. It won't happen while I'm GM but believe it or not I do care about what Habbox will be after I leave, its not about looking good and going out and being like, well when I was GM things were awesome.

Once the step is taken it usually progresses and gets more lax, not the other way.

I also think of second chance a different way, I think that your ability to use the forum is the second chance you're getting, not necessarily with your own account.

Sorry for not replying to posts, but I think I'm taking a slightly different tack here so it may be easier (and less time consuming considering the length of my monster post) to go off of this tangent.

[e5]

All of the (asst)forum managers and (A)Gm's replies all seen to be very dismisses in this thread, which isn't much of a coinsidence?

I think chances should be given. Everyone makes mistakes, some now, some in the past and I think everyone deserves the chance to behave themselves and have their old accounts unbanned and merged if they wish. I personally don't have much to get back as I have had another account by the name of "e5" perm banned, but then created a second account and had the name changed to "e5" deleting the banned account completely.

[Axel]

I want my old account back.... it was perm banned by Barkseh ages ago when I had not broken enough rules to deserve that kind of ban...

[Catzsy]

moderators are not allowed to see the funny side of things. ah well, the rest of the forum misses out on my amazing posts.

Now I find that funny! Great dry humour there Wootzeh. :)

Nvr seems to be taking the right direction.


I think the better idea would be to open the door to a single appeal for old account bans that were improperly issued
I think the answer for the future maybe, for the manual bans to be checked to make sure they are fair rather than relying on the contact form. I don't think it would be too onerous and would provide a quality check. With the automatic banning system there aren't that many manual bans and all infractions are checked, anyway.

[Wootzeh]

not sure if im allowed to post this dododo


As of right now this ban is too old to be looked at since it wasn't appealed within the 2 week grace period to appeal old bans, however the rules may be altered to allow you to appeal once. Keep tuned! There will be an announcement made if it happens.

[Mentor]

If an improved appeals system is the solution, how long before we will be able to put forward an application?

[nvrspk4]

If an improved appeals system is the solution, how long before we will be able to put forward an application?

As soon as I figure out a way that will prevent people from slipping in extra ban appeals that will also allow people to appeal old bans.

Which, now that I think of it, is excruciatingly simple, the only fault being that people who don't remember the passwords to their banned accounts would be screwed.

[Wootzeh]

I had to remake my e-mail to get the new password for mine o.o glad it wasnt taken

[Mentor]

As soon as I figure out a way that will prevent people from slipping in extra ban appeals that will also allow people to appeal old bans.

Which, now that I think of it, is excruciatingly simple, the only fault being that people who don't remember the passwords to their banned accounts would be screwed.
Most people will remember the passwords, those who don't will at least likely know the email they signed up with and possibly still be able to receive from it :)

If not, some may also be able to do a wootzeh :p

[nvrspk4]

Most people will remember the passwords, those who don't will at least likely know the email they signed up with and possibly still be able to receive from it :)

If not, some may also be able to do a wootzeh :p

Truth, I think I found a workaround.

[Mentor]

Truth, I think I found a workaround.

Woop :D My hopes of an account regained are at an all time high :P

[Skajo]

Woop :D My hopes of an account regained are at an all time high :P
I still don't understand what's going on but I'm glad a fantastic community member such as yourself will most probably have your account back - I remember your countless appeals about it :)

[Mentor]

I still don't understand what's going on but I'm glad a fantastic community member such as yourself will most probably have your account back - I remember your countless appeals about it :)

Well technically this would be my first actual appeal, before its generally just been me moaning on the forum about it :P
Nice to think something may actually come of it for once :)