24 hour bans and voting

the way I've always seen it is that for 24h bans the banning admin has the last say. so let's say kanst banned someone for grief, and he has reasonable evidence, it shouldn't be overturned by a vote. the only one with the authority to unban would be kanst (barring the EAO and owner), not a senior, not any exec that isn't EAO

i just don't think it'd make sense to have a vote on every 24h ban. its 24h. just wait it out.

I'm going to spend way too long writing this but this is how I see it.

Indefinite bans, aside from exceptional circumstances, are public. An admin makes a post and displays most of the major offences a player has committed as well as other evidence. The entire community is able to vote on whether or not the player will be banned or not in a thread that is live on the forums for days.

And the same applies to an appeal. Since the community voted for the player to be banned, the community can also vote to remove that ban in the case that the player appeals if the community feel the player has been genuine enough to deserve being allowed back in.

But many, if not most daybans involve just one person in the decision making process - the admin in question. (there are a few exceptions like chat offences where multiple staff members and even a few operators would have seen enough evidence to cast a judgement on a ban though).

So there's only going to be a handful of people at the very most who would have seen enough about a dayban to be able to cast a vote on an appeal. And not everyone is going to vote all of the time.

So yeah, basically because the decision to ban is made by one admin I feel it's only right for that admin to be the only one who can decide the outcome of an appeal for that ban - and I personally prefer if dayban appeals were only used in the case of possible misunderstanding rather than 'yeah I did it im sorry'

And my final point was summed up in the most recent ban appeal - a player appealed almost instantly following their ban and the community (including myself lmao) casted their votes. But the ban ended up expiring before a significant number of people could vote. So.. what's the point in the voting?

I don't agree that the banning admin should essentially have a veto over their unban, and I think any admin should be able to handle a ban appeal. I don't think any policy has ever said that the banning admin has the last word on an appeal (unless there is a new policy). I assume we are referring to jwmphall's ban: I think there was little that the banning admin could add especially as there were screenshots. If I were an admin, I would likely have unbanned jwmphall instead of voting (seemed like section 3 to me), and I believe this would be supported by the most recent version of policy that I am aware of.

I think admins should be able to handle appeals against bans from others. This isn't about distrust of admins. Instead, I think it is more efficient to allow any admin to deal with an appeal, and also means a fresh pair of eyes can look over the details of the case.

I agree with GeekGuy, unless it was a pure mistake, then the banning admin shouldn't be the one to unban since they don't make the rules.

Quote

↩  GeekGuy432 I think admins should be able to handle appeals against bans from others.

i agree and disagree. i've had numerous cases in the past where the op outright lied and got unbanned anyway, as I was asleep or at school or whatever when they appealed. back when i was first admin (during windows' reign) the others generally went ' Luke can you look at this appeal' or whatever. You've also got to take into account that the admins that deal with the appeal do not have the full context that the banning admin has. For example in jwmphall's appeal, he was banned for building swastikas and he admitted to doing so, by saying it was a Buddhist symbol. any other admin would just unban, since he argued he didn't build a swastika, and it wasn't until dragon showed the screenshots that anyone had both sides.

Quote

↩  Madea the banning admin shouldn't be the one to unban since they don't make the rules.

see above, i don't think anyone thinks they do make the rules

↩  GeekGuy432 I disagree. The only person who can really know the full scope of what went on is the admin who gave out the punishment. As I said in my long winded essay, it's not like indef bans where the evidence is out for all to see.

I'm not going to blatantly overrule the decision of an admin because I probably wasn't there. I trust the other admins on this server to do the right thing - if they believe a player overstepped the line to get sec 2ed, I will back their judgement.

Personally, appeals should only be used for 24 hour bans if there may have been a misunderstanding and the admin involved can see the other side of things and review their decision. Else it should just be waited out.

I'm not reading all this, but in short Luke is right, and 24hr bans dont mean much unless you repeat offend. I think that if you want clarity on why you were banned you should try and get in contact with the staff member that banned you and talk with them directly, forum post isnt gonna do much if anything.