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!
Printable View
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!
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 :)
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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by lNaughtynemo
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor-Alex
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 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.Quote:
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 :)
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 "/
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.
A) I think that's basically a ban appeal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentor
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.
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 :PQuote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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?
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 :PQuote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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 :PQuote:
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?
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.Quote:
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.
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.
I appreciate that a lot :)Quote:
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 :)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GommeInc
Sorry to burst your bubble but you would not be eligible for amnesty :PQuote:
Originally Posted by scottish
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GommeInc
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 rulesQuote:
Originally Posted by lNaughtynemo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentor
EDIT: Now THESE are the posts I'm known for :P
Not so sure on this one. Most members that get permed are permed for a REASON. Therefore they should not be unbanned.Quote:
getting a permed account back, means members will be more likely to abide by rules for fear of loosing it again.
Obviously that is not the case for all but for most it is.
---
So some people will be getting unbanned Percy?
My orginal account was banned year's ago, and i'm still around to this day - and well yeah, i want it back. ;]
Well from what i saw, it was just one thread, apparently constant hate or something along the lines of that ;pQuote:
Originally Posted by nvrspk4
Can't say i didn't try. ;)Quote:
Sorry to burst your bubble but you would not be eligible for amnesty :P