[Rules] Allow permabanned members to appeal

[king achilles]

We do get appeals from some banned users to come back sometimes. I do bring those appeals to the other admins for further review so it's not only one person who evaluates their cases.

If the suggestion is to have the community also have a say on the appeal, it will be a popularity contest.

It's like having Pontius Pilate asking the community who he should release, Barabbas or Jesus. We all know who the community chose.

The outcome will always be obvious. It will be decided on who is the most popular or who has many friends or clanmates to back him up. If a certain banned player who's got many friends in CC appealed, why bother asking the community when we already know the answer. The banned "popular" guy will always be favored. Should your violations be forgiven and be allowed to come back because you have many or more CC friends than those who are against you? Why bother with the process of public appeal when the outcome would already be evident.

[thegreekdog]

We do get appeals from some banned users to come back sometimes. I do bring those appeals to the other admins for further review so it's not only one person who evaluates their cases.

If the suggestion is to have the community also have a say on the appeal, it will be a popularity contest.

It's like having Pontius Pilate asking the community who he should release, Barabbas or Jesus. We all know who the community chose.

The outcome will always be obvious. It will be decided on who is the most popular or who has many friends or clanmates to back him up. If a certain banned player who's got many friends in CC appealed, why bother asking the community when we already know the answer. The banned "popular" guy will always be favored. Should your violations be forgiven and be allowed to come back because you have many or more CC friends than those who are against you? Why bother with the process of public appeal when the outcome would already be evident.

When you bring the appeals to the other admins for further review, does that not also become a popularity contest?

[Metsfanmax]

When you bring the appeals to the other admins for further review, does that not also become a popularity contest?

The reason that they were selected to be admins in the first place is the belief that they would look out for the entirety of CC, not just their own interests. The same could not be said of the few people who would decide to participate in these community panels.

[notyou2]

We do get appeals from some banned users to come back sometimes. I do bring those appeals to the other admins for further review so it's not only one person who evaluates their cases.

If the suggestion is to have the community also have a say on the appeal, it will be a popularity contest.

It's like having Pontius Pilate asking the community who he should release, Barabbas or Jesus. We all know who the community chose.

The outcome will always be obvious. It will be decided on who is the most popular or who has many friends or clanmates to back him up. If a certain banned player who's got many friends in CC appealed, why bother asking the community when we already know the answer. The banned "popular" guy will always be favored. Should your violations be forgiven and be allowed to come back because you have many or more CC friends than those who are against you? Why bother with the process of public appeal when the outcome would already be evident.

This post does not address the issue of cheaters being reinstated and others permanently banned for minor post infractions. Many of the bans were subjective at best and of a relatively benign nature, yet the multi creators are reinstated without penalty. It is the cheaters that will drive away the players more often than a poorly thought out off-topic post, especially when many players don't even read the off-topic forums.

This makes little to zero sense in a strategy gaming site, nor does it appear to me to be a sensible business practice other than the collection of one year's dues. Furthermore, it alienates the vast majority of players who are honest and play fair and is also a questionable ethical issue.

Greed trumps honesty.

[thegreekdog]

When you bring the appeals to the other admins for further review, does that not also become a popularity contest?

The reason that they were selected to be admins in the first place is the belief that they would look out for the entirety of CC, not just their own interests. The same could not be said of the few people who would decide to participate in these community panels.

I do not believe you answered my question. I believe you are indicating the admins should be impartial, but I'm wondering if they are or not. Obviously, that's difficult to prove.

And I would generally suspect, given the permanently banned members who were banned for non-game reasons (see notyou2's post), that it would not turn into a popularity contest (we'd have well over a majority of the vote, for example, to bring back someone like Dancing Mustard, not to beat a dead horse).

[Army of GOD]

When you bring the appeals to the other admins for further review, does that not also become a popularity contest?

The reason that they were selected to be admins in the first place is the belief that they would look out for the entirety of CC, not just their own interests. The same could not be said of the few people who would decide to participate in these community panels.

I don't understand this at all.

I know it'd be rule of the majority, but if the majority wants something, it's beyond me as to why it wouldn't be in the favor of CC as a whole. CC's admin system isn't even a republic. They were appointed by lack for business reasons, not to look out for the community.

Here's an example of the mods/admins making a decision that the community disagreed with: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131064&hilit=free+army+of+god. I don't quite understand why a "popularity contest" has such a negative connotation...I'd rather it be a popularity contest than an oligarchy.

[agentcom]

We do get appeals from some banned users to come back sometimes. I do bring those appeals to the other admins for further review so it's not only one person who evaluates their cases.

If the suggestion is to have the community also have a say on the appeal, it will be a popularity contest.

It's like having Pontius Pilate asking the community who he should release, Barabbas or Jesus. We all know who the community chose.

The outcome will always be obvious. It will be decided on who is the most popular or who has many friends or clanmates to back him up. If a certain banned player who's got many friends in CC appealed, why bother asking the community when we already know the answer. The banned "popular" guy will always be favored. Should your violations be forgiven and be allowed to come back because you have many or more CC friends than those who are against you? Why bother with the process of public appeal when the outcome would already be evident.

It sounds like "an" appeals system is in place. It may be informal or at least outside the public eye, but it is in place. So, is the OP's suggestion then to have a "public" appeals system? That's not what it sounds like from the OP where he talks about filing e-tickets (which go to the mods).

I guess I don't really see what there is to this suggestion after KA's response. It doesn't really sound like it should go to "accepted" or "rejected" but to "not a suggestion: already in place."