Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2019-08-18, 11:56
Sign in to follow this  
YNW Viking

Amnesty Who?

Recommended Posts

I agree! It's very important to offer equal opportunities to everyone! I personally think Abu Muhammad would be the perfect person to extend this offer to! 

Share this post


Link to post

I also agree with this. I'm not against anyone coming back, but I think that if a certain precedent is set, it needs to apply to others as well. IIRC there were people in the past who had lesser offenses than some who also offered a bigger fee, and were promptly denied. Maybe this idea should be brought back under review and consideration of the staff. 

Share this post


Link to post

There are very good friends of mine, such as EvanM23, who have changed for the better but are refused the opportunity at a chance of redemption. It's fine if some people return, but why can't others who didn't do half the stuff they did?

Share this post


Link to post

If one person can pay a greater fee to be unbanned despite how recent their ban was, I don't see why someone who's been banned for a lesser reason for way longer would be told they couldn't pay more to be unbanned. I get these things are case by case but it just seems unfair to me, but hey, that's just my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post

You should add a poll to this to more effectively gauge the community opinion on this. 

Share this post


Link to post

Amnesty has little to do with the rule breaks, more so to do with who is liked by who, from what I’ve been told at least.

Imo they should be handled the same way as reports, if you’ve got blatant bias towards the person, you shouldn’t be handling it or have a say in what goes on. 

At the end of the day, if people that harassed others, made multiple accounts to continue doing it can come back due to supposedly ‘changing’ so can others.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, strider said:

 EvanM23

Yes evan needs to be free

 

Idk its rolles and jims sandbox.

 

Theres some blank spoots on the amnesty program and should be updated

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Mexi said:

Amnesty has little to do with the rule breaks, more so to do with who is liked by who, from what I’ve been told at least.

Imo they should be handled the same way as reports, if you’ve got blatant bias towards the person, you shouldn’t be handling it or have a say in what goes on. 

At the end of the day, if people that harassed others, made multiple accounts to continue doing it can come back due to supposedly ‘changing’ so can others.

Exactly. Honestly I think amnesty should be handled publicly not via email where they can be ignored, told flat out no despite it being unjust, or any other horror story i've heard from others before. It should be a publicly viewable thing in a subsection of appeals. That way the community can know and see who is applying, who's being denied or accepted and for what. Transparency is always the way to go. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Mexi said:

Amnesty has little to do with the rule breaks, more so to do with who is liked by who, from what I’ve been told at least.

If this was the case I don't think I'd be back tbh.

I personally think Amnesty should be the same for everyone not who can pay the most but what can we do eh.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Several members who've come back on amnesty don't fit the criteria listed on the amnesty page. At this point I'd say its just at the discretion of the owners as to who is and who isn't let back in.

27 minutes ago, Viking said:

Can some of my friends pay 200 euro’s to be unbanned

Not some of your friends, no.

Personally I'd have preferred that all of the criteria listed publicly had been stuck to for more than 2 weeks but y'know, shit happens.

Share this post


Link to post

There’s no use in trying to cover it in any way, some people were allowed back because they were friends with staff. If I had been involved in DDOSing individuals I’d never be allowed back here.

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly, I preferred it when, if you got permed, you had to wait a year before you could apply for amnesty. 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Mexi said:

Amnesty has little to do with the rule breaks, more so to do with who is liked by who, from what I’ve been told at least.

Very much this. We have basic requirements for amnesty that are outlined on the page. The rest of the process and who gets accepted or not is completely up to me and Jim. That process more often than not involves whether we like someone or not, or how we perceive their history/past rule breaks.

So yeah, bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Roland said:

Very much this. We have basic requirements for amnesty that are outlined on the page. The rest of the process and who gets accepted or not is completely up to me and Jim. That process more often than not involves whether we like someone or not, or how we perceive their history/past rule breaks.

So yeah, bias.

Doesn’t change the fact it should be a majority vote.

One persons disliking for an individual doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed back.

it should be based around what the person did, just as it was listed when the idea was originally presented.

Edited by Mexi

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Roland said:

Very much this. We have basic requirements for amnesty that are outlined on the page. The rest of the process and who gets accepted or not is completely up to me and Jim. That process more often than not involves whether we like someone or not, or how we perceive their history/past rule breaks.

So yeah, bias.

That doesn't really answer the question though.

Can others pay more for unbans like others have recently or is that all up to bias? Can only some people strictly based on the grounds that they're friends with staff do this? Or could someone who's been banned for a while offer the same fee and have better chances of getting accepted?

Share this post


Link to post

Kinda dumb, but like @Roland and @JimRP own it so like lmao it is what it is.

 

I would do the same thing if I was in their shoes.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Jasper said:

Can others pay more for unbans like others have recently or is that all up to bias?

That's difficult to answer. Think like this. Both me and Jim have equal "veto" on amnesties and appeals, meaning if one of us disagrees about amnesty, it cannot be done.

Now consider that Jim doesn't care about this "small" amnesty fee. So while I may be swayed that a person won't fuck up when they put down a double or even quadruple fee on the line, for Jim that doesn't matter, he will still veto if he wants to.

So the answer to the question is, others can pay more for amnesty, but paying more may work for one of us, but not both. And both is required for amnesty, so in the end the fee does not really matter if there is bias.

 

15 minutes ago, Jasper said:

Can only some people strictly based on the grounds that they're friends with staff do this?

No, I don't think so. Anyone could technically do it and send a "bigger offer", you don't have to be friends with staff to submit an appeal. But it obviously helps if we know you. And if you don't meet requirements then I will most likely "veto" and deny.

 

15 minutes ago, Jasper said:

could someone who's been banned for a while offer the same fee and have better chances of getting accepted?

It completely depends on bias and if they meet the requirements in our eyes.

Share this post


Link to post

If me and Roland both don't agree on an amnesty then the person is not let back in, it's that simple. If someone offers x100 the amnesty fee and I'm still saying no on their amnesty, I'll still be saying no, no matter how many times they offer to pay their amnesty over.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Roland said:

That's difficult to answer. Think like this. Both me and Jim have equal "veto" on amnesties and appeals, meaning if one of us disagrees about amnesty, it cannot be done.

Now consider that Jim doesn't care about this "small" amnesty fee. So while I may be swayed that a person won't fuck up when they put down a double or even quadruple fee on the line, for Jim that doesn't matter, he will still veto if he wants to.

So the answer to the question is, others can pay more for amnesty, but paying more may work for one of us, but not both. And both is required for amnesty, so in the end the fee does not really matter if there is bias.

 

No, I don't think so. Anyone could technically do it and send a "bigger offer", you don't have to be friends with staff to submit an appeal. But it obviously helps if we know you. And if you don't meet requirements then I will most likely "veto" and deny.

 

It completely depends on bias and if they meet the requirements in our eyes.

That's a pretty comprehensive answer. Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Roland said:

Very much this. We have basic requirements for amnesty that are outlined on the page. The rest of the process and who gets accepted or not is completely up to me and Jim. That process more often than not involves whether we like someone or not, or how we perceive their history/past rule breaks.

So yeah, bias.

Honestly respect you for just saying it, I mean I’d want my friends back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Squillium said:

Honestly respect you for just saying it, I mean I’d want my friends back. 

Eh, I don't think it's anything special. I still think it's pretty fair. While you're here as community members in good standing, we as owners and staff try our best to treat you all equally and reduce any personal biases to a minimum, to insure nobody gets screwed over. But once you're out from the community and you fucked up so badly you need amnesty, you're at owners mercy and it's completely up to us whether you may come back or not.

Share this post


Link to post

IMO it does not bother me who gets allowed back into the community and how much they pay. If they can learn to follow the rules and not break any again, then it shouldn't be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, BrianM said:

 

I still think that people who got banned because they did horrible things to other community members (spreading nudes etc) shouldn't be let back in. I know for a fact that some people left because people who did horrible things to them were allowed back in the community.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...