"Archaic Bans"

[jammi]

To an extent, I agree with Magpie. Ban appeals generally aren't actually very helpful, because you're simply getting a wall of text where someone attempts to feed staff whatever insincere bullshit they expect we want to hear.

The only extremely narrow situation where they are helpful is where the banned party doesn't actually understand why their actions were harmful, and tries to proffer the wrong platitudes as a result. Either way, the entire process suffers from words being wind.

I obviously can't speak for staff as a whole, but my personal view is that there is nuance and context involved here. Trying to strike a balance between pragmatism and community health against moral hazards and perverse incentives.

If a substantial period of time has passed, an evasion is detected, their conduct demonstrates change, and they are then asked to submit an appeal disclosing their former identity(s), reasons, assets, etc, it should be at least considered.

If the ban is then lifted, that should be announced in the original ban thread. I don't think there is any obligation to link that original ban to the user's current public alias.

I think people have many reasons to want to reinvent themselves. Some people want to leave behind baggage, drama, and prejudices associated with their prior actions. Try for a clean slate where they can contribute to the community without being tarred for their past.

I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, especially given how vitriolic this community can be, and how long grudges can be held for. Staff is still aware of who that person is and can monitor them, without needing to out them to the wider community- that could even be counter productive to any rehabilitative effect.

Bans should primarily be about changing behaviour, or quarantining individuals that have proven to be unable to change, or engaged in illegal activity.

---

News article library, feedback and content requests.