FIRE SALE at Bans R' Us!

[Spider Jones]

We've already removed bans in the past. Maybe we need a formal appeal process? I dunno... I did like that Andrew guy. ;f

[boombrakh]

OK -- you want to make it a supermajority of admin who think a person has reformed or was unjustly removed and reinstate membership. Fine.
But no blanket amnesty.

It's not about having a blanket amnesty for me, it's about opening that vault(tm) door and realizing the world still exists and it may have changed a bit since we were out there.

As for the "supermajority" comment, I must admit that I don't really understand it so I can't comment.

[Swift]

As for the "supermajority" comment, I must admit that I don't really understand it so I can't comment.

While a majority means 51%, a super majority is usually a specifically defined number higher than 51% that needs to be reached. So for us, 3 to 2 is a majority admin decision, a super majority would have to be a 4 to 1 decision (since 5 to 0 is unanimous).

[Rotku]

Supermajority makes no sense on this issue. As far as things go, this is about as Player Admin as an issue can get. Nothing can be more clearly in the PAs domain than membership. If the PA says Unban, they are unbanned (barring Lead Veto).

[Castano]

Supermajority makes no sense on this issue. As far as things go, this is about as Player Admin as an issue can get. Nothing can be more clearly in the PAs domain than membership. If the PA says Unban, they are unbanned (barring Lead Veto).

this is easier. PA has the staff to review past bans. I suggest they start with the political bans from ALFA1. e.g. the notorious DM farming accusations. Though I doubt those girls would come back even if we did offer.

EDIT: Did we or did we not blanket amnesty ALFA1? People say we did. If so this issue becomes less important.

[Rotku]

EDIT: Did we or did we not blanket amnesty ALFA1? People say we did. If so this issue becomes less important.

Na, not really. We didn't copy over the ban lists though, so anyone who was banned in NWN1 could easily jump back in by making a new account. However, if that were to be discovered, I'm sure the door will be hitting them on the way out.

[Blindhamsterman]

As someone that was perma banned a.long time ago for a mixture of missdeeda and imagined missdeeda, i will suggest that a blanket unban is rather pointless, if someone wants to get back in game, emIl the admin... It really is as simple as that. Make a case for why you feel you should no longer be banned. If people come back, bring them back as i was brought back... With two strikes. If they do something wrong, ban them again. If they are proven to be alright, remove their strikes.

[Mick]

As someone that was perma banned a.long time ago for a mixture of missdeeda and imagined missdeeda, i will suggest that a blanket unban is rather pointless, if someone wants to get back in game, emIl the admin... It really is as simple as that. Make a case for why you feel you should no longer be banned. If people come back, bring them back as i was brought back... With two strikes. If they do something wrong, ban them again. If they are proven to be alright, remove their strikes.

I think this is quite reasonable.

[Burt]

I think the real solution to this problem is to ban boombrakh immediately.

[dergon darkhelm]

OK. Don't get all whipped up in supermajority or which amins or what not --- what I really wanted to get at was that *if* we want to consider removing permanent bans it should be done under some review framework on a case-by-case basis, not a blanket amnesty.

[Castano]

OK. Don't get all whipped up in supermajority or which amins or what not --- what I really wanted to get at was that *if* we want to consider removing permanent bans it should be done under some review framework on a case-by-case basis, not a blanket amnesty.

I suggest any unbans be balanced by bans of current members, starting with Boom, then Burt (and placing me last). This way server populations remain balanced.

[Blindhamsterman]

[quote="Burt"]I think the real solution to this problem is to ban boombrakh immediately.[/quote]

I vote we ban burt for being scottish.... Oh hang on.....

[Rotku]

OK. Don't get all whipped up in supermajority or which amins or what not --- what I really wanted to get at was that *if* we want to consider removing permanent bans it should be done under some review framework on a case-by-case basis, not a blanket amnesty.

I suggest any unbans be balanced by bans of current members, starting with Boom, then Burt (and placing me last). This way server populations remain balanced.

Because the last thing we want Is more players!

[Regas]

There was really cool movie with this as a premise. If you slept overnight in the town then the town held a lottery and killed off one member. If you left the town you died. The population never changed. This may be an effective retention tool- I'll look into drafting a policy

[boombrakh]

There was really cool movie with this as a premise. If you slept overnight in the town then the town held a lottery and killed off one member. If you left the town you died. The population never changed. This may be an effective retention tool- I'll look into drafting a policy

But.. If you left town after they offed someone, they'd kill you and then the population would have changed..