[Overlewd]

If you believe a punishment given to you is unfair, you should make an unban/unblacklist request when it was issued. 

It is not feasible to review all punishments - way too many of them. Also, they become progressively harder to review based on the loss of memory and evidence as time goes on. So nah, that's not happening.

And what Quest said is correct, most of the time I would have read through any unban/unblacklist request between the times of its creation and conclusion even without being tagged or anything.

[Taylor]

Just like how we let police departments act as the judge, jury and executioner when they want to sentence someone, right?

No? The IC PD requires no evidence other than word of mouth. Staff members require evidence to punish you...

No they don’t, if they witness a FearRP breakage there is no evidence other than their word.

[Soviethooves]

Just like how we let police departments act as the judge, jury and executioner when they want to sentence someone, right?

No? The IC PD requires no evidence other than word of mouth. Staff members require evidence to punish you...

No they don’t, if they witness a FearRP breakage there is no evidence other than their word.

Actually they havw an admin tool they can show to any staff member who wishes to see evidence. It makes the cases very easy to conclude with this tool, but for some reason it’s confidential.

[Soviethooves]

Just like how we let police departments act as the judge, jury and executioner when they want to sentence someone, right?

No? The IC PD requires no evidence other than word of mouth. Staff members require evidence to punish you...

It was metaphorical in terms of stopping bias.

Yes, and I debunked any relationship they may have to counter your comparison.

[Nebula]

A police officer arrests someone, years later the Police Officer gets fired.

Is the Arrest still on the record or do they just say.. well he's demoted, just make it like the guy he arrestes never did anything.

[Apex]

"well he's demoted, just make it like the guy he arrestes never did anything" Is that what I said?

[Cole]

All in all, the question is, why shouldn't they? The person at the time broke the rules and therefore was punished for that. Just because the issuing staff member leaves the team it doesn't suddenly make that punishment invalid.

[Project]

All in all, the question is, why shouldn't they? The person at the time broke the rules and therefore was punished for that. Just because the issuing staff member leaves the team it doesn't suddenly make that punishment invalid.

He is not talking about resigned staff, he is talking about demoted staff, and if I understand correctly bans they issued on the subject they got demoted for should be reconsidered.

IMO all bans should remain unless there is evidence of it being false.

[Apex]

All in all, the question is, why shouldn't they? The person at the time broke the rules and therefore was punished for that. Just because the issuing staff member leaves the team it doesn't suddenly make that punishment invalid.

He is not talking about resigned staff, he is talking about demoted staff, and if I understand correctly bans they issued on the subject they got demoted for should be reconsidered.

What project said.

[pufitee]

If there was a chap named barry and he was staff, he banned/blacklisted/warned people and all of them were valid. but then barry met a chap named jeff, he then permed jeff for no reason so jeff made a appeal and got it removed. barry got demoted and the ban that he made on jeff got removed because that was invalid but all of the other ones that were valid stay because they were obviously valid (for one reason or another)

And that is how Pufitee explains his opinion.

[Toxic]

Someone's probably said this here already, but just because a staff member is demoted, does not mean, even necessarily, that their punishment was invalid. Waiting 6 months or 2 years to appeal a punishment from a demoted staff member for example, does not really fall in anyone's favor anyway, considering the length of time. If it's invalid at the time which it is issued, the person in question really should make an appeal with appropriate evidence.

[Dick]

yeah.

[Doctor Internet]

Yeah. If there's a specific issue, you can always appeal the specific ban.

[Apex]

Ban appeals are rigged tbf.

[Soviethooves]

Ban appeals are rigged tbf.

I mean if you call the only two (sometimes more) people involved arguing it out when the person making it usually doesn’t have evidence and that most UBR get second opinions from uninvolved staff members through hideen posts “rigged”, then I don’t what you think is fair.

Would you rather someone who doesn’t know what happened judge the situation? If so, please show me evidence that the appeals are rigged.