Amnesty of active members with banned accounts

[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

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 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.