New Ban System: We Need Your Feedback!

[Lily Haaron 118]

I say make part of the appeal process be re-coding part of the website to make it back up to date.

 

~Dimos

[Ruin 0]

I do like the idea, as it'll give some people some time to mature. My question is: Does this "second-chance/review" thing apply to people who have been banned with less than 7 warns?

 

Probably not since most users who have been banned with less than seven warns have been trolls/second accounts.

[Adam? 475]

I don't see a purpose in going from -7 to -8 as the 8th warn is only used for the permanent ban. Aside from that, these are great changes and I do like how the suggestions we gave have been implemented into a specific new system.

[Fangy 1]

Yep, I have to agree, 1 year for the 7th warning is far too much. 6 months sounds perfect though. It's enough time for these forums to still be in their minds, but not so long that they either just start making troll accounts or leave permanently.

 

The rest seems fine though.

We don't want the forums to be in their minds though. We want them to leave as they've been banned. If someone has 7 warns we don't want them back really do we?

 

The year means that If they do in the future happen to think about Sal's they'll be able to come back.

 

Hopefully as a more mature person. We all regret things in the past, this offers people a second chance to change.

 

There are plenty of people with 7 warns we want back like Shizzle and Willey.

[Birthday 6]

These new ideas seem good, but I have one question. How does a banned member submit an "unbanning request" if they can't log into/access the forums to make a post?

 

I believe a new subforum would be created where only members in the "banned" group would have posting permissions. They would be able to submit their requests there.

Just an idea, but I think any banned member who tries to log back into the forums for the first time should be automatically redirected to the new subforum. Maybe even send them straight to the rules page for that subforum?

 

I do like the idea, as it'll give some people some time to mature. My question is: Does this "second-chance/review" thing apply to people who have been banned with less than 7 warns?

 

Probably not since most users who have been banned with less than seven warns have been trolls/second accounts.

Or people trying to sell products of a sexual nature. I remember a few amusing PMs from members of that sort.

[Hyrax 22]

This all looks wholly reasonable to me.

[Flame Curse 0]

Well, it sounds better, i might go with this.

[Bwauder 249]

looks good,& I agree a separate banned/mod only access forum will allow the last chancers to make the contact/appeal if they seriously want to come back.

[William Howard Taft 81]

I agree with this new policy, strongly.

[Lord Hawkowl 0]

Sounds like a good idea. I think the suspensions will particularly help, since maybe people who get 7 warns will think about something during the year that they're suspended. Most of them won't, though.

[heb0 150]

Just to clear up possible misconceptions: People would not be able to ask for a warn review if they were banned after this system goes into effect (i.e. they reach 8 warns). The only people who could appeal are basically "oldies" or anyone banned before the new system went into effect.

 

For example:

 

If you were banned three years ago, you can request a review

If you were banned a month ago, you can request a review (once a year has passed)

If you were banned the day before the system changes, you can request a review

If you were banned the day after the system changes because you reach 8 warns*, you cannot request a review, because when the year suspension with your seventh warn is over, that's basically your "ban review" when you come back.

 

*- This is just an example It would actually be impossible to be perma-banned a day after the new system starts, because you wouldn't have reached 7 warns yet and before you get to 8 you'd have to sit through your year suspension.

 

These new ideas seem good, but I have one question. How does a banned member submit an "unbanning request" if they can't log into/access the forums to make a post?

 

I believe a new subforum would be created where only members in the "banned" group would have posting permissions. They would be able to submit their requests there.

 

I have an odd feeling that banned members would just rage or troll there o.O

 

That's just entertainment for the mod team.

 

I do like the idea, as it'll give some people some time to mature. My question is: Does this "second-chance/review" thing apply to people who have been banned with less than 7 warns?

 

It wouldn't apply to people who were auto-banned, so no. Advertisers, porn spammers, etc. would go straight to a permanent ban.

 

How come? Both Admins and Mods give out warns and it's not as if unbans/suspensions are difficult to undo.

 

I just feel outright banning someone from the forums completely is a decision that should only be taken by the administrators, after all, they run the forums.

 

Outright banning someone actually is already only reserved to the admin team. Moderators are just allowed to give really really really long suspensions (think 9999 years ). I can see what you're saying about the year-long suspension/temp ban at 7 warns being something only admins should handle. It's certainly something we'll consider.

 

I don't see a purpose in going from -7 to -8 as the 8th warn is only used for the permanent ban. Aside from that, these are great changes and I do like how the suggestions we gave have been implemented into a specific new system.

 

No purpose other than keeping it balanced and simpler. For some reason I imagine I would be more confused as a newbie if my warn level read <-7 () 8>. I'm not sure if it's possible to have a max/min that aren't balanced. An admin or someone who is familiar with IBP would know. (Actually, since you were an admin of Nightclub, I guess you might know. :/)

[Sleepy 14]

Well what's the worst thing that could happen?

 

I guess this seems like a good idea. The 1 month for 6 gives it some extra weight.

[Kemosabe 190]

So what happens if someone is caught using an alternate account while under the year suspension?

[Mr FANG 21]

So what happens if someone is caught using an alternate account while under the year suspension?

Probably the same thing that happens if they were permanently banned prior. It goes as a warn on the old account and banning the new account.

[heb0 150]

So what happens if someone is caught using an alternate account while under the year suspension?

 

Oops. I left this out of the announcement. Their suspension would be extended 6 months + the age of their evading account.

Edited November 16, 2010 by heb0

[Mista Hardrune 4]

Time to break Daniel out of jail guys.

[Mr FANG 21]

Time to break Daniel out of jail guys.

They get a ban review, not an immediate unban .

Edited November 16, 2010 by Mr FANG

[Mean Souls 0]

Any chance we can get old user's display names? Say my name is Jared, and I'd like to have that name on the forum, but it's in use and they haven't logged in in 2 years and only have 1 post.

[Jacky 19]

cool story sals.

 

i like

[Phoenix Rider 220]

A one-year suspension for seven warns? I'm not sure members will remember or want to come back after that time, unless they feel like flametrollwtf-ing.

 

If they really want to return to this forum then they could wait can they? Especially considering how generous the proposal is by giving them ANOTHER CHANCE after 7 warns. It'll separate the deserving from those who would just ause the system and use it for another round of lolz.

 

I also think 6 months is more than enough.

 

I disagree. 1 year will give them time to think and grow up. It also acts as a deterrent. If they feel the warn is unjustified, they can debate and troll the review page anytime they want.

 

1.) Un perma-ban after about 2 years. That way, they can come back maybe later in life, and return to the community. The same should go for IP bans and such.

 

2.) Ban reviews only for the 6th and 7th bans. A review for an 8th ban? Eh, I don't think you really don't need that.

 

3.) No minus warns until 2 months after suspensions. That will give us some idea of whether they have truly matured or whether they are simply on fake behavior.

 

1 - I disagree. 2 years is far too long. We want to give those who really want to return and are deserving a chance. Not make them totaly forget the who thing.

 

2 - Already addressed. We will not be reviewing after 8 warns.

 

3 - I agree. That'll put them on the hot seat and make them watch their behaviour.

 

I must say, I am really pleased with this move by our staff. It'll give alot of deserving people a chance to return and I love the way the staff addressed an important suggestion by the community.

 

Also, this could very well effect the plot of our favourite amine.

[Thomas 0]

Far too complex for no gain (the only ones who gain are the little shizzles on 7 warns). What can possibly be the justification?

[Morte 49]

Far too complex for no gain (the only ones who gain are the little shizzles on 7 warns). What can possibly be the justification?

In the original discussion found here, most people who were involved on the side for this new system argued that many members who do get to 7 warns have gotten the last warn for something quite silly. The suspensions would help them to calm down, and reevaluate their actions before they could get banned.

 

 

Also I have a question: Will we still have mod review/warn reduction after 1+ month?

[Thomas 0]

In the original discussion found here, most people who were involved on the side for this new system argued that many members who do get to 7 warns have gotten the last warn for something quite silly. The suspensions would help them to calm down, and reevaluate their actions before they could get banned.

Then the warn guidelines that mods follow need re-evaluating, not the max. number of warns. If the 8th warn is given just as easily as the 7th, this solves nothing.

 

If on the other hand the warn guidelines are already fixed, just give all old bans a review and be done with it for good.

[Egghebrecht 359]

Also I have a question: Will we still have mod review/warn reduction after 1+ month?

yes

nothing changes there

 

But they aren't supposed to wait. They are banned same as before after 7 warns, if, in a year they are a changed person they get an appeal.

 

They don't necessarily get to come back, they get an appeal.

I would like to stress this fact very much

 

A NO is still a possibility

[Adam? 475]

No purpose other than keeping it balanced and simpler. For some reason I imagine I would be more confused as a newbie if my warn level read <-7 () 8>. I'm not sure if it's possible to have a max/min that aren't balanced. An admin or someone who is familiar with IBP would know. (Actually, since you were an admin of Nightclub, I guess you might know.

Nightclub? Pff. I should know because I was an admin on Paradise City.