I waited 5 days for a ban appeal (which is fine I understand you guys are under a strenuous work load) on a minor incident and I was “down-graded” to a 3 week ban over something thats generally appealed, only reason im formulating a staff complaint is I feel this was a false consensus, there where RDM’s, people saying the N-word, metacom’s, etc etc, that where accepted and appealed why am I being punished more for a lesser offence with a 3 week extension rather than an appeal? This situation has left me and many others confused, it really makes no sense, I dont appreciate being felt like im being made an example of.
Also id like to add that this was NOT an indefinite ban, it was and is an APPEAL ban, this is not a reduced punishment it is increased punishment.
TLDR
Why is my appeal ban being increased to a timed ban when this admin is saying I was perma-banned (Ive never been perma-banned) and my ban is being decreased to a timed ban?
I was never perma banned and the increased punishment of my appeal ban makes no sense.
Ban ban ban ban ban
It wont let me edit this but I was just going to add that after talking with another Admin who helped me realize that this isnt a direct complain with Ajex himself as he was just the staff responding, but a complaint with the consensus process and heavy handedness as an entirety.
Thank you for the complaint, it has been accepted.
Findings
- An “appeal ban” and “indefinite ban” are the same thing. “Indefinite ban” is the term we’ve been transitioning to from the term “appeal ban” for around 6 months. While “appeal ban” may imply that all that needs to be done for the ban to be lifted is to make an appeal, even when the old term was used in policies, the admin team had the option and regularly did reject appeals of “appeal bans”.
- An “indefinite ban” is one which does not automatically expire, can be appealed, and does not require a voucher of good behavior to appeal.
- The ban that the complainant appealed was an “indefinite ban”.
- Using the term “reduced” to describe the ban’s change from indefinite to 3 weeks is appropriate.
- The appeal was put up for a vote at least 24 hours prior to being processed.
- 5 admins, including the processing admin, participated in the appeal through voting or discussion, with 3, not including the processing admin, unanimously voting to reduce, not remove, the ban.
- Only one admin indicated a suggestion for the reduction in discussion, and the suggestion was 2 weeks.
- A reasonable interpretation for reductions when unspecified is to reduce to that time from the time that the vote for the appeal was put up rather than from the time that the ban or appeal was made.
- Processing admins may vote in appeals.
- Processing admins who vote in appeals are not required to indicate their vote if it is not for a voucher upgrade.
- For decisions made off discussion consensus, such as reduction times, processing admins must express their positions in the discussion to be able to consider it in their processing, and they must leave sufficient time after doing so for others to disagree.
- Due to findings 7, 8, and 11, the admin team’s consensus was to reduce the ban to 2 weeks from the time of the appeal.
- The complaint does not provide specific examples of worse or similar appeals of bans which were for worse or similar offenses that were given more leniency, it only references appeals by offense category and lists so many categories that it likely covers a majority of appeals.
- With the number of factors to consider in a ban appeal, and the nature of those factors, it is extremely difficult to objectively conclude that an appeal was treated unfairly compared to another appeal if the standard appeal procedure was followed.
Resulting Actions
- AjexRose was contacted about the complaint.
- The ban has been modified to end 2 weeks after the appeal vote was started.
- AjexRose was informed of finding 11.