An Unfair system with no room for reform.

[Adman]

First of all, you haven't answered my question. Is Termin correct in his statement that it is possible to appeal 24 hour bans?

Yes he is. Recently, we have come to the decision that if a user feels that their suspension is unjust, then no matter the time frame it is only right they have a chance to appeal it. However, the rule was originally put in place to prevent the large stream of appeals that inevitably follow whether they have any credit or not. I shall bring the issue up with an SA as to whether the rule itself should stay there anymore.

Should he be correct, the misinformation provided in the rules is the reason his bans are so plentiful, as he seems to have valid reasons to refute SEVERAL bans, as he has already done earlier in this post. Should he have known he could post appeals to those bans, and he had, and they had been moved through, he wouldn't have had 13 bans on his record when this incident came around, and the permanent ban is placed on the amount of bans, as you have said "Plenty of chances to clean your act up.".

This isn't actually so true. If we take a look at the fourth reply of the thread we can see Dead Pixel's input on 4 bans; I presume these are the "SEVERAL bans" he had "valid reasons to refute" so we shall look at each of them in turn. Since your involvement in the case is regarding the 24 hour limit, I will explain how it did not apply in many of these bans.

Note - I haven't pasted what Pixel says for the sake of space, it can be seen earlier in the thread.

"Proppushing,Propsmashing players towards cave" (14525; banned by Grub)


Verdict - valid suspension. Regardless of events, Dead Pixel had indeed used props to smash other players. As to whether or not the other person was banned is irrelevant, only Grub can comment on that, Pixel still violated server rules.

24 hours? - No. This was a 2 day ban, issued '2012-09-08 02:03:33' and expired 2012-09-10 18:43:33. According to the rules, this was perfectly fine to appeal should Pixel have had reason to.

"Ban request approved - Propkilling hismelf. (Extended due to current ban)" (14605; banned by Ruxandra)

Verdict - likely valid, conclusion unlikely to ever be fully met. Ruxandra issued the suspension and she is no longer an administrator here, so her view on events is not likely to be seen. Bearing in mind that the event also occurred a significant time ago.

24 hours? - On its own, it is just over 24 hours. Issued '2012-09-10 14:20:35' and due to expire '2012-09-11 18:43:33'. As seen in the reason, "(Extended due to current ban)", Grub's ban was still in effect and so with the total time over 24 hours, this suspension was also valid to appeal.

"Switching jobs to avoid an admin, Prop killing" (12877; banned by Grub)

Verdict - a valid suspension. Dead Pixel can't remember prop-killing anyone with this ban, which is understandable. It has been a significant amount of time, 324 days roughly, since the ban was issued. We choose our administrators carefully, so if one says that someone prop-killed someone then they most likely did. Since Pixel cannot accurately refute the prop-killing, this would never likely be discussed. As for changing jobs, well that could always depend on the context. Regardless, the ban would have been issued on the prop offence alone.

24 hours? This time, yes. The ban was exactly 24 hours and so according to the courthouse rules, not up for appeal. However, since Pixel cannot remember prop-killing, we can't say whether the ban was invalid or not.

"Prop killing" (11417; banned by WorldWideCoffee)

No need for a discussion here, the ban was over 24 hours and Dead Pixel himself said he deserved a ban.

What can we conclude from this? Well, your stated involvement in this case is twofold; first as being stated as involved by the OP as a witness/otherwise involved in the case from which the most recent ban was issued. Your second 'involvement' is to refute the permanency of the ban by stating that, due to our own rules, several invalid bans stacked up and resulted in Pixel's record as being one of significant rule breaking.

However, as I have explained there is only one ban that Pixel mentioned in his post which was restricted by this rule; yet this ban was a valid one. Even so, if any of the other bans mentioned had not been valid or had been confusing then Pixel had sufficient rights to appeal them as they were not 24 hours or under. Since he did not, and since a few of the bans are valid despite Pixel's explanations we can only take the current record of 13 bans (Not including DoomDude's perm) to be correct. As such, a 14th ban is perfectly justifiable as becoming permanent.

Now my second question, should his bans have been less plentiful, would the permban even be in the question?

Depending on what you mean by less plentiful, certainly. Only one ban of his bans appears to be restricted by the 24 hour rule, the one in which Pixel is unsure of whether he prop-killed. Now, for arguments sake, lets take this as invalid and that should the rule have not been there he would have had it removed. That still leaves Pixel with 12 bans, easily enough for a permanent suspension to be in the equation. Even 11 bans, if Pixel had two suspensions removed is looking at a permanent suspension.

**EDIT**
I just noticed that I have a 10% warning level due to my posting in this thread? I'm sorry, but not only was I listed as "involved", verifying my involvement right there, I pose a valid question, one not only relevant to this particular case but to the unban system in general. I'd like that warning removed or at least some explanation for how my question is not relevant.

I have removed the warning as you are certainly deemed to be involved.

However, I respectfully request that the remainder of your involvement and discussion of this appeal to be regarding the event from which Pixel's final ban was issued. I hope I have cleared up how the 24 hours rule has not adversely affected Pixel or his record, and how several of his bans from which you both deemed to be invalid, are in fact, valid.