[StephanGH]

Considering I've seen multiple permanently banned users positively contribute to the community they've been banned from, I don't see why they should be barred from giving input. A bad idea is a bad idea, no matter who points these things out. Furthermore, if someone who has been permanently banned starts abusing the privileges they have on another service? They they'll be removed too. We shouldn't be punishing people for not breaking our policies.

[Lewwings]

+support.

[Toxic]

People who end up in prison also have a number of their rights taken away. +support.

[Taylor]

People who end up in prison also have a number of their rights taken away. +support.

People who end up in prison also can’t communicate with anyone they please at any second of any day, but banned players can.

This analogy has been used over and over again yet that doesn’t make it any less flawed.

[Ollie630]

+Support

[Doctor Internet]

People who end up in prison also have a number of their rights taken away. +support.

People who end up in prison also can’t communicate with anyone they please at any second of any day, but banned players can.

This analogy has been used over and over again yet that doesn’t make it any less flawed.

People who end up in jail are normally there due to a bias in the legal system, where black people who use drugs are way more likely to end up in jail, combined with poor socio-economic circumstances which forces them to rely on overworked public defenders, who in some cases, end up spending 7 minutes for each case they have to represent.

Though, I'm sure it's a great analogy to use in this case.

[Taylor]

Well I would have thought it would have been clear that when their ban is lifted, so is their block on suggestions. It would be insane to act as otherwise

Okay, so for the near 8 months I was banned does that mean my opinion should've be invalidated? Even if I made fair and accurate points?

[Doctor Internet]

Okay, so I did some work, and I've had a chat with Project already about this.

I went through the past 6 months of suggestions using a tool I wrote.


I found 0 instances of vote abuse, troll voting, or anything else.
Most permed players do not vote. Those that do, either side with the community, or end up siding with the staff response. If siding with the majority vote or staff is trolling, then Jesus, I don't know what to say.

Now Internet, why are you so heavily against this suggestion, I hear you ask.
I was permed because I called myself Joe Skylynx, after playing with Joey on some DarkRP servers. I've seen firsthand how bans can be spurious at best. Black has been permed because an admin abused and was trying to cover it up. I've seen other community members who have been banned argue and vote in good faith, before being unbanned in the future. @"Faustin", @"LiVHDX" We should not be punishing people, taking away voting rights, when people haven't actually broken any of our policies on the forums. They're split for a reason, with only a single infraction being cross-platform (that being TOS breaches). If you break the discord rules, you aren't forum banned. If you break the game rules, you aren't banned from discord. So, why are we revoking privileges on the forum, because of game bans, when we don't do that for any other case? We are more than just a CityRP server, we are a gaming community. We stream, we play other games, we do all sorts of shit that isn't just CityRP.

But Internet, those who are permed can't be informed of what's happening on the server! We have changelogs, we stream CityRP, we have update notifiers, we have dev blogs, we have a discussion section, we have an OOC relay that literally pumps out our chat into discord. And more than that, being permed doesn't mean you can't talk to people. To say you get banned and then have no idea what's going on is laughable and uniformed at best, and at worst; more akin to the trolling that others complain about in this thread.

But Internet, it's just my opinion! Yeah, I get that. It's your opinion; if your opinion effects others however, there's the difference. As I said to Project.

[10:29 AM] Doctor Internet: I know that's your opinion.
[10:30 AM] Doctor Internet: I'm arguing against it, because I've seen what happens.
[10:30 AM] Doctor Internet: Under the guise of preventing bad things from happening, which didn't happen anyway, good people get caught up in it.
[10:31 AM] Doctor Internet: If that's what your opinion supports, then so be it. I cannot support that.

If this is what your opinion supports, punishing people voting in good faith, because you believe that people do it in bad faith, when the evidence points the other way? Sure. Go ahead and vote in favour. I cannot support that, and I cannot support this suggestion.

[Joey Skylynx]

I have been permabanned from many servers, and usually for the most stupid of shit. Case and point with the other community, in which I was banned for simply protesting against the mayor on the server as a hobo.

Banning players from taking part in discussions because they are banned on the server is pretty fugging stupid tbh. Sometimes those people are actually able to explain serious problems in the server that need to be dealt with.

[bimkx]

-snip-

Thanks for the mention... I believe that even after being banned for 1y, then that becoming a perm, I attempted to have a positive impact on the community for a while such as providing development resources to contribs etc before losing interest (As most permed people would). I think this suggestion is bad. If someone abuses the privilege of voting, banned or not, then it can be dealt with case by case as it is at the moment.

[Project]

In my opinion, it is not only about abuse. It is a matter of principle, if you been banned enough times to warrant a permanent ban, maybe it is time that your voting rights are revoked too. I don't see how a permed player would be in a position to decide if someone is a good candidate when he can not observe him online? I also don't see why a someone with a permanent ban would get to decide to happen on a server that he is no longer able to access, regardless whether he is supporting a good or bad suggestion in good or bad faith.

I am not saying they should be able to see and post (on) suggestions, but they should not be able to vote.

Also what @Joey Skylynx‍ and partially @Doctor Internet‍ said is not really valid, we are talking about limelight, which as far as we know, has not really permabanned someone with a proper reason behind it. It doesn't matter if abuse happens outside of limelight, this is a suggestion where people permed in limelight loose their right to vote. Also, it doesn't matter they have not broken forum rules @Doctor, they shouldn't be allowed to vote on something that will make changes on a server they can not access.

So, if someone that is permed wants to show that he has reformed, there are other, far better ways to do it. They can start by helping people on H&S, by taking part in discussions, by creating suggestions and voicing his opinion in others.

[Doctor Internet]

So, if someone that is permed wants to show that he has reformed, there are other, far better ways to do it. They can start by helping people on H&S, by taking part in discussions, by creating suggestions and voicing his opinion in others.

I was going to write another paragraph, but I just need to focus on this.

They can take part in discussions / suggestions, and even create their own, but not vote on their own suggestions, or suggestions that they contribute to? That seems counter-intuitive.

[Nudel]

Okay, so I did some work, and I've had a chat with Project already about this.

I went through the past 6 months of suggestions using a tool I wrote.


I found 0 instances of vote abuse, troll voting, or anything else.

1: John Jong -supporting a teacher app despite being permanently banned. He is in no way able to see the person applying for teacher IG (to see the players abilities) as he is permanently banned.




2: John Jong voting on a teacher app despite being permanently banned. Again, he is not able to see the players abilities in-game therefor just voting something based of the teacher-application post itself.




3: Best case in my opinion. John Jong is -supporting a teacher app with the reason "who are you". The problem: He is suspended since ages. It makes no sense for him to vote with this reasoning as there is no chance of him actually knowing the person good.




Those are just some examples of a permanently banned player voting for something and affecting the community's server experience despite not being able to join the server anyway.

It does not affect them, so why should they be able to vote. They are banned for a reason.

[Project]

So, if someone that is permed wants to show that he has reformed, there are other, far better ways to do it. They can start by helping people on H&S, by taking part in discussions, by creating suggestions and voicing his opinion in others.

I was going to write another paragraph, but I just need to focus on this.

They can take part in discussions / suggestions, and even create their own, but not vote on their own suggestions, or suggestions that they contribute to? That seems counter-intuitive.

As I said, it is a matter of principle in my opinion. If you are permed on the server, you shouldn't vote on what gets changed. You can make suggestions, but you shouldn't vote.

[Doctor Internet]

Okay, so I did some work, and I've had a chat with Project already about this.

I went through the past 6 months of suggestions using a tool I wrote.


I found 0 instances of vote abuse, troll voting, or anything else.

-snip-
It does not affect them, so why should they be able to vote. They are banned for a reason.

>"looked through suggestions"
>talks about teacher applications

Were these posts reported at the time, because once again, serious section of the forums. I'm looking through past reports and can't find them.
Furthermore, you're taking a single instance of someone breaking the rules, who was banned for breaking the forum rules already, and using it as an excuse to punish and restrict everyone.