ITT why Goon should be banned

[NeighImACarrot]

bans don't have to carry over from previous forums, but bans made on this particular forum ought to be upheld.

But that would lead to the loss of outstanding members of the community such as avalanche

"outstanding"

You know it

[Goon]

as long as HA posts his racial hatred threads in the chatterbox and doesn't spam the main forum i really don't see the problem.

#bringbackplayground2016

[The Red Blur]

Both lra2 and sparkey were allowed back after perm bans so I don't see why not. yeah sparkey ended up getting banned again but avalanche didn't turn out that bad.

as long as HA posts his racial hatred threads in the chatterbox and doesn't spam the main forum i really don't see the problem.

Well, I believe lra2 waited more than half a year to rejoin. I think it should be at least a year after a permaban before you even THINK about begging for a second chance. No idea about sparkey, 'cause she left before I joined.

as long as HA posts his racial hatred threads in the chatterbox and doesn't spam the main forum i really don't see the problem.

#bringbackplayground2016

Oh, lord, don't start this again.

[NeighImACarrot]

Both lra2 and sparkey were allowed back after perm bans so I don't see why not. yeah sparkey ended up getting banned again but avalanche didn't turn out that bad.

as long as HA posts his racial hatred threads in the chatterbox and doesn't spam the main forum i really don't see the problem.

Well, I believe lra2 waited more than half a year to rejoin. I think it should be at least a year after a permaban before you even THINK about begging for a second chance. No idea about sparkey, 'cause she left before I joined.

LRA2 registered in may 2009 and avalanche was registered in October 2009.

[RTC]

I did some research into the subject, and I'm pretty sure that anyone prominent that has been perma-banned has made some kind of attempt to return to the site, whether it's to change their behaviour so they can be given another chance or to just continue trolling. If we know it's Andy, and he's not actively breaking the rules, and has had an extended hiatus from the website, why should he banned again?

[Badger]

I did some research into the subject, and I'm pretty sure that anyone prominent that has been perma-banned has made some kind of attempt to return to the site, whether it's to change their behaviour so they can be given another chance or to just continue trolling. If we know it's Andy, and he's not actively breaking the rules, and has had an extended hiatus from the website, why should he banned again?

Rules need to be upheld properly, even if that wasn't the case in the past. I think the question here is with what those rules should be.

[Reier]

either uphold the rules or change the rules, doing neither isn't an option

[yugitom]

I did some research into the subject, and I'm pretty sure that anyone prominent that has been perma-banned has made some kind of attempt to return to the site, whether it's to change their behaviour so they can be given another chance or to just continue trolling. If we know it's Andy, and he's not actively breaking the rules, and has had an extended hiatus from the website, why should he banned again?

Rules need to be upheld properly, even if that wasn't the case in the past. I think the question here is with what those rules should be.

Although I agree the rules should be upheld (Andy even broke the multi-account rule by making the new account in the first place, something which Mechadino was, at least, muted for, iirc), this isn't a question of what the rules should be, as we're already at the point at which someone has been perma-banned. What might be wrong was the decision to ban him permanently in the first place, considering how everyone is being so vocal about giving him a second chance.

My opinion is that, if he was permanently banned, he shouldn't even have the option (never mind anyone in the past that actually did) to come back. If the higher-ups felt that the situation with Andy was so dire that he needed to be permanently banned, then he should stay that way. If the higher-ups thought that some time off would do him good but it's so dire he just needs about half a year being banned, then they would have done that.

[RTC]

Honestly, I'd maintain a case-by-case basis with regards to perma-bans, much like most judicial systems have in the form of parole. People who have served indefinite sentences have gone onto to be paroled and contribute to society; and seeing how breaking the rules on a message board is a relatively minor crime compared to what an indefinite sentence can be imposed for, as well as the scarcity of perma-bans on this website, I'd say that a parole-like policy, with a minimum time before parole can be proposed would the best case scenario. Of course, if the user continued to make multiple accounts before the parole, more and more time could be added to it.

Punishment is justice for the victims, and rehabilitation is justice for the perpetrators after all.

@Yugitom: The problem with your proposition is that if Andrew were to return after that temp ban, there would be little guarantee that his behaviour would improve after his sentence, seeing as he has had a history of being muted and warned in the past. With a permanent ban, your message is far likelier to get across as it is the most severe punishment a forum can deliver, whilst still leaving the door open for reformation.

[Badger]

I did some research into the subject, and I'm pretty sure that anyone prominent that has been perma-banned has made some kind of attempt to return to the site, whether it's to change their behaviour so they can be given another chance or to just continue trolling. If we know it's Andy, and he's not actively breaking the rules, and has had an extended hiatus from the website, why should he banned again?

Rules need to be upheld properly, even if that wasn't the case in the past. I think the question here is with what those rules should be.

Although I agree the rules should be upheld (Andy even broke the multi-account rule by making the new account in the first place, something which Mechadino was, at least, muted for, iirc), this isn't a question of what the rules should be, as we're already at the point at which someone has been perma-banned. What might be wrong was the decision to ban him permanently in the first place, considering how everyone is being so vocal about giving him a second chance.

My opinion is that, if he was permanently banned, he shouldn't even have the option (never mind anyone in the past that actually did) to come back. If the higher-ups felt that the situation with Andy was so dire that he needed to be permanently banned, then he should stay that way. If the higher-ups thought that some time off would do him good but it's so dire he just needs about half a year being banned, then they would have done that.

That's fair, but then every other member who was permabanned should be re-permabanned.

[yugitom]

@Yugitom: The problem with your proposition is that if Andrew were to return after that temp ban, there would be little guarantee that his behaviour would improve after his sentence, seeing as he has had a history of being muted and warned in the past. With a permanent ban, your message is far likelier to get across as it is the most severe punishment a forum can deliver, whilst still leaving the door open for reformation.

However, he had the comfort of knowing he wasn't IP banned and that he could come back whenever he wanted, once people had calmed down. Something which he did. He didn't wait until he thought he was rehabilitated enough for the forum to handle him, he just came back at his leisure when he thought the reaction to his arrival would be exactly as it's panned out right now, a lot of people defending him asking to give him a second chance.

Also, with the court comparison, I would say it's more to do with being given life and then getting out early on good behaviour. However, the argument of whether life should actually mean life is something different.

[Meganerdbomb]

On the one hand, there's actually zero reason to let him stay, given what we know, on the other, what's the worst that could happen? But for everyone complaining about consistency in the rules, that's literally never been the case, so we may as well wait till this awesome new rule system are hardworking staff is developing comes into use, then we can actually complain if the rules aren't followed.

[Naryar]

On the one hand, there's actually zero reason to let him stay, given what we know, on the other, what's the worst that could happen? But for everyone complaining about consistency in the rules, that's literally never been the case, so we may as well wait till this awesome new rule system are hardworking staff is developing comes into use, then we can actually complain if the rules aren't followed.

I guess every government needs an opposition as part of the natural order of things, but must you really spit on the staff's work every occasion you get ? You're starting to sound a lot like pre-ban Andrew.

[The Red Blur]

On the one hand, there's actually zero reason to let him stay, given what we know, on the other, what's the worst that could happen? But for everyone complaining about consistency in the rules, that's literally never been the case, so we may as well wait till this awesome new rule system are [ sic ] hardworking staff is developing comes into use, then we can actually complain if the rules aren't followed.

I detect a hint of sarcasm, there.

[RTC]

@Yugitom: The problem with your proposition is that if Andrew were to return after that temp ban, there would be little guarantee that his behaviour would improve after his sentence, seeing as he has had a history of being muted and warned in the past. With a permanent ban, your message is far likelier to get across as it is the most severe punishment a forum can deliver, whilst still leaving the door open for reformation.

However, he had the comfort of knowing he wasn't IP banned and that he could come back whenever he wanted, once people had calmed down. Something which he did. He didn't wait until he thought he was rehabilitated enough for the forum to handle him, he just came back at his leisure when he thought the reaction to his arrival would be exactly as it's panned out right now, a lot of people defending him asking to give him a second chance.

Also, with the court comparison, I would say it's more to do with being given life and then getting out early on good behaviour. However, the argument of whether life should actually mean life is something different.

I agree that the discretion on the minimum time a user should spend being banned before being allowed into the community should be decided upon by the staff, but the staff did agree to allow Andy to come back onto the website provided he followed their terms and conditions.

Parole hearings are still granted whether the prisoner is worthy or not of being released from jail; the only thing that needs to be done is for the prisoner to serve the minimum sentence. It is then the judicial system's decision whether or not the prisoner should be paroled or not.

[Meganerdbomb]

On the one hand, there's actually zero reason to let him stay, given what we know, on the other, what's the worst that could happen? But for everyone complaining about consistency in the rules, that's literally never been the case, so we may as well wait till this awesome new rule system are hardworking staff is developing comes into use, then we can actually complain if the rules aren't followed.

I guess every government needs an opposition as part of the natural order of things, but must you really spit on the staff's work every occasion you get ? You're starting to sound a lot like pre-ban Andrew.

Actually, that was like 93% serious. Don't just assume the worst about me.

[yugitom]

@Yugitom: The problem with your proposition is that if Andrew were to return after that temp ban, there would be little guarantee that his behaviour would improve after his sentence, seeing as he has had a history of being muted and warned in the past. With a permanent ban, your message is far likelier to get across as it is the most severe punishment a forum can deliver, whilst still leaving the door open for reformation.

However, he had the comfort of knowing he wasn't IP banned and that he could come back whenever he wanted, once people had calmed down. Something which he did. He didn't wait until he thought he was rehabilitated enough for the forum to handle him, he just came back at his leisure when he thought the reaction to his arrival would be exactly as it's panned out right now, a lot of people defending him asking to give him a second chance.

Also, with the court comparison, I would say it's more to do with being given life and then getting out early on good behaviour. However, the argument of whether life should actually mean life is something different.

I agree that the discretion on the minimum time a user should spend being banned before being allowed into the community should be decided upon by the staff, but the staff did agree to allow Andy to come back onto the website provided he followed their terms and conditions.

Parole hearings are still granted whether the prisoner is worthy or not of being released from jail; the only thing that needs to be done is for the prisoner to serve the minimum sentence. It is then the judicial system's decision whether or not the prisoner should be paroled or not.

This isn't a minimum time issue. He was permanently banned, not temporarily. That's the kind of ban that is the last resort. By using a ban like that, I would assume that the person or people behind the decision to apply it had no intention of the member returning. Although HA was allowed to return, I really don't see why he was. He may have been sincere and upfront about his return but, surely, that doesn't matter in this case.

What I'm trying to get at it is, who's being held accountable for the initial perma-banning of HA? I think I need to know exactly why he or a collective did it to understand whether or not quashing the ban is reasonable. Because, right now, it seems like Craaig let him back on the basis that he hasn't been around for a while and must've changed.

On the one hand, there's actually zero reason to let him stay, given what we know, on the other, what's the worst that could happen? But for everyone complaining about consistency in the rules, that's literally never been the case

Then, how about we start now? Perhaps it'll set the mods off on a good track record of upholding rules and keeping them consistent.

[Badger]

@Yugitom: The problem with your proposition is that if Andrew were to return after that temp ban, there would be little guarantee that his behaviour would improve after his sentence, seeing as he has had a history of being muted and warned in the past. With a permanent ban, your message is far likelier to get across as it is the most severe punishment a forum can deliver, whilst still leaving the door open for reformation.

However, he had the comfort of knowing he wasn't IP banned and that he could come back whenever he wanted, once people had calmed down. Something which he did. He didn't wait until he thought he was rehabilitated enough for the forum to handle him, he just came back at his leisure when he thought the reaction to his arrival would be exactly as it's panned out right now, a lot of people defending him asking to give him a second chance.

Also, with the court comparison, I would say it's more to do with being given life and then getting out early on good behaviour. However, the argument of whether life should actually mean life is something different.

I agree that the discretion on the minimum time a user should spend being banned before being allowed into the community should be decided upon by the staff, but the staff did agree to allow Andy to come back onto the website provided he followed their terms and conditions.

Parole hearings are still granted whether the prisoner is worthy or not of being released from jail; the only thing that needs to be done is for the prisoner to serve the minimum sentence. It is then the judicial system's decision whether or not the prisoner should be paroled or not.

This isn't a minimum time issue. He was permanently banned, not temporarily. That's the kind of ban that is the last resort. By using a ban like that, I would assume that the person or people behind the decision to apply it had no intention of the member returning. Although HA was allowed to return, I really don't see why he was. He may have been sincere and upfront about his return but, surely, that doesn't matter in this case.

What I'm trying to get at it is, who's being held accountable for the initial perma-banning of HA? I think I need to know exactly why he or a collective did it to understand whether or not quashing the ban is reasonable. Because, right now, it seems like Craaig let him back on the basis that he hasn't been around for a while and must've changed.

On the one hand, there's actually zero reason to let him stay, given what we know, on the other, what's the worst that could happen? But for everyone complaining about consistency in the rules, that's literally never been the case

Then, how about we start now? Perhaps it'll set the mods off on a good track record of upholding rules and keeping them consistent.

He's been allowed to stay because the precedent for this kind of thing is that permabans aren't really very permanent.

[NeighImACarrot]

@Yugitom: The problem with your proposition is that if Andrew were to return after that temp ban, there would be little guarantee that his behaviour would improve after his sentence, seeing as he has had a history of being muted and warned in the past. With a permanent ban, your message is far likelier to get across as it is the most severe punishment a forum can deliver, whilst still leaving the door open for reformation.

However, he had the comfort of knowing he wasn't IP banned and that he could come back whenever he wanted, once people had calmed down. Something which he did. He didn't wait until he thought he was rehabilitated enough for the forum to handle him, he just came back at his leisure when he thought the reaction to his arrival would be exactly as it's panned out right now, a lot of people defending him asking to give him a second chance.

Also, with the court comparison, I would say it's more to do with being given life and then getting out early on good behaviour. However, the argument of whether life should actually mean life is something different.

I agree that the discretion on the minimum time a user should spend being banned before being allowed into the community should be decided upon by the staff, but the staff did agree to allow Andy to come back onto the website provided he followed their terms and conditions.

Parole hearings are still granted whether the prisoner is worthy or not of being released from jail; the only thing that needs to be done is for the prisoner to serve the minimum sentence. It is then the judicial system's decision whether or not the prisoner should be paroled or not.

This isn't a minimum time issue. He was permanently banned, not temporarily. That's the kind of ban that is the last resort. By using a ban like that, I would assume that the person or people behind the decision to apply it had no intention of the member returning. Although HA was allowed to return, I really don't see why he was. He may have been sincere and upfront about his return but, surely, that doesn't matter in this case.

What I'm trying to get at it is, who's being held accountable for the initial perma-banning of HA? I think I need to know exactly why he or a collective did it to understand whether or not quashing the ban is reasonable. Because, right now, it seems like Craaig let him back on the basis that he hasn't been around for a while and must've changed.

On the one hand, there's actually zero reason to let him stay, given what we know, on the other, what's the worst that could happen? But for everyone complaining about consistency in the rules, that's literally never been the case

Then, how about we start now? Perhaps it'll set the mods off on a good track record of upholding rules and keeping them consistent.

If they were consistent avalance wouldnt be here, and they are doing new rules to address this problem.

[RTC]

To prevent a quote pyramid from spawning:

Yugitom, it's no secret that permanent bans mean nothing here. Of the five prominent users that I know of that got perma-banned, 3 returned and tried to reform, one spammed the forums with alternate accounts and the other attempted to use proxies and got some normal users caught in the collateral range bans. There is nothing permanent about them; and a system that tries to present them as such is flawed. This is why I am trying to propose an undisclosed duration with a minimum time of appeal instead, given the rarity that these bans are handed out to members that aren't spambots.

I'd be pretty sure that the majority of the moderating collective agreed to the initial banning, otherwise it would have likely not have happened. And Craaig and Thyrus did the right thing in informing the moderating collective of HA's return, and allowing a decision to be made on that basis.