[Apex]

Should bans given by demoted staff be upheld without review? (Only as demotions have been doing the rounds with the staff team recently).

If a staff member has been demoted for a policy or rule breakage then how can limelight as an entity be that the actions they performed on the behalf of limelight were acted on according to the rules, and were within the limits of what was expected of them.

In short how can the word of decision of someone who themselves has broken the rule be counted upon? (In the same way a convicted criminal cannot sit in a jury).

[ForceGhost]

A convicted criminal can sit in a jury before he was convicted.

[BlackDog]

Not all demotions are because one has broken a rule or abused their power, thus it would seem odd to nullify their decisions in past cases.

[Taylor]

Roland, my good friend for many years.

Just because a staff member was demoted does not mean their punishments were invalid, for example Soviet punished me for a legitimate FearRP breakage but was demoted much later, does that mean my ban should be annulled?

[Soviethooves]

Make a UBR if it's invalid. That's one of the reasons it's there.

Demoted Staff doesn't always equal Absolute Shithead (Like yours truly). It could just be for a situation they didn't agree with or a rule they don't believe they broke.

[Jen]

A ban is a ban. They were put there because you did something wrong. Why, should they be removed because they have been removed from their job. That act that you committed hasn't changed due to this.

[Apex]

gungranny (AkA Soviet) will always have a special place in my heart. I would say because of the special bond we have formed over the years his bans are valid, even legendary.

[Apex]

Either my point wasn't that all bans should be removed without question, that concept would in effect retard the progression of the ban system. (Still got a bit of work to do on that one lads).

My point was that if a staff member has fallen foul of the rules (as specifically mentioned in the post) then it is clear they do not have good judgement on them, therefore the bans they have given should be reviewed, to an extent.

[Soviethooves]

Either my point wasn't that all bans should be removed without question, that concept would in effect retard the progression of the ban system. (Still got a bit of work to do on that one lads).

My point was that if a staff member has fallen foul of the rules (as specifically mentioned in the post) then it is clear they do not have good judgement on them, therefore the bans they have given should be reviewed, to an extent.

That isn't their job. Your record is YOUR RECORD. If you feel there is a flaw in a punishment, it is up to you to bring it up in a UBR.

[Apex]

But then we get onto the issue of the fairly biased UBR system.

[Quest]

But then we get onto the issue of the fairly biased UBR system.

Not really because if you think that the admin is judging it wrong you can just ask an SA to review it.

For example:
I showed an admin a video asking if it was FearRP, he said it wasn't.
I took it to an SA and they said it was FearRP and then the admin was informed that it was.
Some people do have miss judgements of things which is why you can request an SA to review and most of the time, an SA has already read it before you even ask them to review it.

[Soviethooves]

But then we get onto the issue of the fairly biased UBR system.

Ain't bias if you provide evidence to being innocent. Even then, if you have no evidence, the demoted staff member can't close it, but can only comment. And his word is as good as yours in that scenario.

And how is it bias? You and the staff member are the only people who were in the situation. A 3rd party can't confirm anything unless you have evidence.

[Apex]

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

[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...

[Apex]

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.