"Archaic Bans"

[Karst]

(The following is just Karst's opinion, not a staff statement)

I am not overly bothered if people with prehistoric bans are playing, if they're not causing trouble, for a number of reasons.

Very old bans were often made by teams that don't have a single person in common with the current, people whose decisions we might now heavily disagree with. They may have been for violations that aren't even in the rules anymore. And long time banned players may have repeatedly tried to appeal, and perhaps unjustly been denied. Following due process is all well and good, but remember, the staff are human, and they make mistakes. I can look back myself and find decisions I made that I would make differently now.

I'm of the opinions that bans generally have a sort of natural expiration. Basically this:

1. I do not believe that enforcing a ban from 3+ years ago is a reasonable or sane way to treat a human being unless it was over something that was irl illegal.

The point of a ban is to end someone's undesirable behavior, right? If that has been achieved, I don't see much of a point in continuing it indefinitely just for its own sake.

This falls under the wider umbrella of letter versus spirit of the rules, in which I am a strong proponent of the latter camp. I see no benefit in sticking to ironclad protocol when it clearly isn't achieving any practical purpose.

---