UBR Rule 6

Marty

Snow Wrote:
Avgar Wrote:Clarified rule 6 and also made it so that players must post within 7 days after staff replies or else their request will be denied.

This will take effect for unban requests made from the 1st of April, 2016.

Rule 6 further clarified to fix exploit.

It was written in a way where users could exploit the system to get their unban request approved.

Staff reply -> User can reply within 7 days.
User reply -> Staff can reply within 7 days.

So with this rule and this is only a "clarification I have read through certain Unban requests and noticed that staff have given users "24 hours to reply"

Now with that being said, given that is the last staff post shouldn't then a user be technically given a further seven days after this reply to actually end the case....even at that shouldn't a user be given the benefit of the doubt to actually be allowed the 7 days from the last staff reply in the first place without 3 days down the line an administrator placing a 24 hour limit.

Equally on top of that when did it become a case that the staff members only had to say this is still being investigated to bypass the 7 day rule.

If a user/player was to comment I will look into that, or I will let you know, then came back and did the same 6 days later would their UBR still continue to be left open ? I severely doubt it.

Please discuss, clarify, and make some necessary changes.

Spoiler: Examples When Users have not been given 7 days

As administrators and staff members I am sure you are all well aware of enforcing rules etc so shouldn't it only be fair that UBR Rule 6 is adhered to and in the interest of fairness the player reports that we're closed before the time stated should also be re-opened to give that player every chance to reply within the set timescale ?

Marty

Spoiler: Please Read Before Replying

**Fultz**

Its an interesting idea.

The rule was initially made because we had people on the staff who either didnt have time, or just wouldnt reply to unban requests until the ban was done, or it was forgotten. The staff was then given the bar on the top of the forums showing them if they received any unban requests. This helped a lot and with the one week rule added players couldnt be ignored.

Now what you are saying regarding the players should have a week as well. For the ban requests, I dont think people whould have one week to respond to the br. If you did that, the courthouse would be a mess. BRs should not be instantly closed either and they should have a shot to reply. I think it would be fair to give the players 24 hours to reply to a ban request if they have one on them. Giving the players the same bar on top that the administrators have to know if they have a ban request on them would help exceptionally as well. It would also be an easy addition since it is the same base as the current system they have right now.

For the unban request. I feel two simple changes should be added to fix the current system we have. The first one being that "Under Discussion/Review" should not be used as a bypass to the week review rule. This statement is mainly used as a stall tactic and a decision on an unban request should never take longer than a day or two for most cases. If that allows admins to stall for longer, the case is not being handled properly. The second addition I would personally make is an admin must respond within the first week, and after the initial response, it goes down to two/three days after the defendants counter to the admins response. This would allow the player to feel that their request is being dealt with properly and not being mishandled.

Marty

I personally preferred it was one week simple as Simon.
If it wasn't replied to/resolved within a week it's automatically in your favour.

However now that very same rule seems to have changed to last reply date.

I'm telling you for now there's no way a case needs to be "discussed internally" for anymore than a few days a week at max, if it does then it just proves how inactive and uninterested the staff team actually are given they can't reply to a forum topic within that time.

**Falc**

I do agree with how it's done with the rule and the last date reply etc, however I don't agree with staff posting a small reply such as "thanks for your patience a verdict will be soon".

With that said, can players then not do the same? Buy them more time to reply by saying "be patient, expect a reply soon" then take another 6 days before posting again? Because I'm sure as hell it would get denied.

The internally discussed cases do however take a week, sometimes longer because every staff members opinion counts, so it may take time to gather them all which is fine, however if not within a week it should then be decided on the opinions gained, whether certain staff replied or not.

It's just unfair on players having to wait on every staff member, then 10 days later being told it's straight up denied,, that I do not agree with.

However as said, the rule in place is fine, but maybe a few tweaks wouldn't go a miss.

Woods3yy

(09-16-2016, 09:33 AM)Falc Wrote: I do agree with how it's done with the rule and the last date reply etc, however I don't agree with staff posting a small reply such as "thanks for your patience a verdict will be soon".

With that said, can players then not do the same? Buy them more time to reply by saying "be patient, expect a reply soon" then take another 6 days before posting again? Because I'm sure as hell it would get denied.

The internally discussed cases do however take a week, sometimes longer because every staff members opinion counts, so it may take time to gather them all which is fine, however if not within a week it should then be decided on the opinions gained, whether certain staff replied or not.

It's just unfair on players having to wait on every staff member, then 10 days later being told it's straight up denied,, that I do not agree with.

However as said, the rule in place is fine, but maybe a few tweaks wouldn't go a miss.

This makes so much sense ^^^