Changes to 'Last Chance'

[Foxirius2205]

+support
However the six months time should stay as well. Even if they don't play for the time, when they come back, if they haven't changed, they could get themselves easily banned once again.

Note: Hey JackZ mind following the guidelines for posting a suggestion.

[Pollux]

+Support

I've always seen last chances being extremely harsh. If you've made an appeal to get unbanned and went through the entire lengthy process I've never understood why any punishment just automatically lands you another very lengthy ban. Everyone slips up at some point and it's quite unfair telling them they can't for 6 months, they're just not going to want to play because of the massive risk. In the end they made the UBR to play again and I think that should be recognised.

[Aspire]

+Support 450 hours being the amount needed. I can only speculate on your reasoning for posting this, although I will give you the benefit of the doubt and agree this is a good improvement to the current system.

[Santaliz]

+Support.

A way more efficient way to prove whether or not a user has changed and deserves to be put off their Last chance.

[JackZ]

+Support 450 hours being the amount needed. I can only speculate on your reasoning for posting this, although I will give you the benefit of the doubt and agree this is a good improvement to the current system.

We may not like each other Aspire, but the reason i posted this was to simply better the current system - I'm glad we could see eye to eye on at least something.

[Divey]

I wouldn't class last chances as 'extremely harsh'. Before there was never the opportunity to have one removed, we were the ones to introduce a more lenient change. With this being said changes to the last chance system have been in discussion for a long time already, we're hoping to make some changes to how they expire. I will approve this suggestion for now but changes to how it will work will not be immediate.

[Pollux]

Finished by Conn a while ago