Posts by GeekGuy432

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.

Welcome back! I'm very glad to see you reinstating

(I don't think it is necessary given the circumstances of the removal, but if voting is being considered, I vouch. Fionn has long been a highly proficient admin and a good executive.)

Welcome back!

Vouch

A very impressive looking spawn. I think this sounds interesting and hope it does well.

It is unclear to me which clause of the staff conduct policy Ashaz is suspended under (other than the "this list is not all inclusive" part). I'm also not convinced that he rage quit or left in a dramatic manner. He quietly left the discord. I do not believe that the original removal was appropriate.

I fully agree with Erin. Mistakes happen. I certainly don't want to use a removal for a matter that is highly trivial in order to evaluate Ashaz's wider competency to be an admin.

I believe the original removal decision should be rescinded. I vouch for Ashaz's full reinstatement and for this removal to be regarded as having not happened, as I think it was wrong.

Vouch

↩  DoctorZene Thank you, it makes a big difference and I have updated my comment accordingly.

A tough one to vote on and a borderline case. I recommend you edit your post and apologise for your actions. In light of the edits made, I feel more confident in vouching on this.

There were a lot of rule violations and it was quite right that you were removed from the server in light of that as I suspect that the rulebreaking would have carried on otherwise. Having said that, it is your first time being indefinitely banned.

I am conscious that allowing you to return could place a burden on admins if you break rules. I want to minimise that. With that in mind I will reiterate what the appeal template says: if you carry on rulebreaking then you can expect to be quickly removed again. If allowed to return, you should look to improve your behaviour as it is obvious that your behaviour was wrong.

I will vouch on the basis that sufficient safeguards exist in the rules to mitigate the risks associated with your return. Please behave better this time.

Congratulations, an excellent choice and I know elmon will be brilliant

Vouch.

You said in your last application "you will see notable improvements in my demeanour from this point forward" - you were right. You have displayed a significant and sustained improvement in the way you speak to others, and have worked so hard on the server in the roles you hold above and beyond your admin status. You've been here for a long time and have shown great commitment to the server, and coupled with the excellent attitude you display, I think you would make an excellent senior admin.

I vouch as the appeal was honest and a sensible amount of time has passed.

I support the idea that senior admins should be able to suspend admins, where appropriate. I'm content with restoring suspension requests if people are more comfortable with that.

Object. I think they have uses in encouraging people to apply, and knowing when is a good time to do so. I also don't think abolishing recommendations will stop any "sucking-up" that occurs because the people who would recommend would merely vouch on the application anyway, giving the same effect.

I agree with Steven as well. I'd gladly reconsider once the system is overhauled.

Vouch for reinstatement to admin now and senior in a month or two assuming no problems or concerns.

I agree with Erin. I vouch on indefinite ban appeals routinely, when people apologise and/or when a good amount of time has passed. However, I am unable to vouch when someone is not honest on their appeal.

A good amount of time has passed. Whether you used Wurst or whether you did it yourself is immaterial to me as the rule violation is essentially the same. If you admit you did it, you may as well be honest about the circumstances or even just state that you added yourself and proceeded to do whatever you did (if this is what happened).

After being banned for a year, it is not too difficult to be unbanned. Unless, of course, you are unwilling to be honest.

I encourage you to consider this in the event you have to make another appeal. It will likely help.

Object.

Vouch. This seems sincere and I'm inclined to believe you. Remember that if something like this happens again you'll likely find yourself banned for a lot longer than a couple of weeks.

@wild1145#18246 Only a very small minority of indefinite ban requests are rejected. Yes, Ashaz would have been banned for two days and no, that wouldn't have been ideal, but I cannot find any indefinite ban requests since then (January) with the Denied tag (looking through the Denied tag list of threads). If the updated system produces bugs like this at the same rate as requests are given the denied tag, that seems pretty good to me. So my case for 'banning people for no reason' is, in a nutshell: hardly anyone is getting banned for no reason, and the benefits to the safety of the server outweigh these rare problems.

Vouch.

If admins are having a laugh by deliberately making ridiculous indefinite ban requests, I suggest that that is, at the very least, under "Minor cases of malicious power abuse" (temporary suspension).

In the past this was the case (if a person wiped the ban list by mistake they were told to reban all who have an open request against them). It doesn't make sense that a person should be allowed to return and continually cause trouble while the ban request process runs.

I think we have to have a degree of trust in admins that they are not going to be silly, and do something about it if they are.

I've seen from posts on the forum that there is a plan to introduce new items to the coin shop. I've also heard that some people are sitting on large piles of coins and that this is problematic. I suggest that, to remove some of the coins and give people a way to spend coins on an ongoing basis, that some items in the coin shop are "subscription" type things i.e. you get access to X for a period of 14 days or something like that.

I have no ideas for what in particular coins could be spent on in this way (and I do recognise that this is not enormously helpful), but I am making the suggestion because of public comments that new items are being considered.