07-12-2025, 01:50 AM
Kinda split on this.
On one hand, Frost isn't exactly someone I would really paint as a trouble maker. They have (mostly, with a few rare exceptions) been keeping their nose clean since this warn was given.
At the same time, the actions here were done maliciously. Those who were participating (Frost, along with 5 others) were actively making the server lag. This type of behavior can cause crashes, and just overall makes the server unplayable for those trying to actually play the game. This appeal isn't trying to claim that the warn is unjust, but rather is attempting to seek amnesty due to time and good behavior. I personally don't believe that warns should be removed, regardless of good behavior or other external factors (except in some VERY VERY specific scenarios, this not being one of them), unless there is something inherently wrong with how the warn was applied (such as it being an unjust warn, or an incorrect warn). I think the way to deal with warns that produces the least amount of bias is to handle each warn in a vacuum, and examine the scenario itself rather than the individual person, unless the appeal is regarding their overall behavior as a whole (think a warn-threshold appeal). Essentially, my viewpoint is that if Warns naturally fall off with time, so that essentially acts as the warn "amnesty".
This logic is a bit different with 10/12 point warns, since they don't expire with time. The point of the lack of expiration is to stress the weight these types of warns carry (Server crashing crap, Sexual/Non-Sexual Harassment, Minge, etc.). Frost is with certainty guilty of the warn. However, while I'm not necessarily 100% opposed to supporting an appeal for this, if it does I think it opens up some other questions:
- What's the point of a warn without an expiration if they can just be appealed and removed down the line?
- Should the others involved (the aforementioned Caribou, Murl and 3 others) be forgiven as well, or is this just a super special exception for Frost?
- Should we allow other Non-Expiration warns (Sexual/Non-Sexual Harassment, Minge, etc.) to be removed for amnesty reasons?
As I've said previously, I'm not 100% against this warn. However, I think it goes against the purpose of the "Non-Expiration" warn and, should this warn be appealed, I think it would be wise to possibly revisit how we handle "Non-Expiration" warns as a community in the future.
+0. Guilty of the warn, and the purpose of the "No Expiration" is so that it doesn't fall off with time (meaning that forgiving a warn would go against this). Still though, I think if a permanent ban doesn't mean permanent, I don't see why (with changes to the rules themselves, I don't think singular exceptions are the best way to handle this) a No Expiration can't be forgiven either.
On one hand, Frost isn't exactly someone I would really paint as a trouble maker. They have (mostly, with a few rare exceptions) been keeping their nose clean since this warn was given.
At the same time, the actions here were done maliciously. Those who were participating (Frost, along with 5 others) were actively making the server lag. This type of behavior can cause crashes, and just overall makes the server unplayable for those trying to actually play the game. This appeal isn't trying to claim that the warn is unjust, but rather is attempting to seek amnesty due to time and good behavior. I personally don't believe that warns should be removed, regardless of good behavior or other external factors (except in some VERY VERY specific scenarios, this not being one of them), unless there is something inherently wrong with how the warn was applied (such as it being an unjust warn, or an incorrect warn). I think the way to deal with warns that produces the least amount of bias is to handle each warn in a vacuum, and examine the scenario itself rather than the individual person, unless the appeal is regarding their overall behavior as a whole (think a warn-threshold appeal). Essentially, my viewpoint is that if Warns naturally fall off with time, so that essentially acts as the warn "amnesty".
This logic is a bit different with 10/12 point warns, since they don't expire with time. The point of the lack of expiration is to stress the weight these types of warns carry (Server crashing crap, Sexual/Non-Sexual Harassment, Minge, etc.). Frost is with certainty guilty of the warn. However, while I'm not necessarily 100% opposed to supporting an appeal for this, if it does I think it opens up some other questions:
- What's the point of a warn without an expiration if they can just be appealed and removed down the line?
- Should the others involved (the aforementioned Caribou, Murl and 3 others) be forgiven as well, or is this just a super special exception for Frost?
- Should we allow other Non-Expiration warns (Sexual/Non-Sexual Harassment, Minge, etc.) to be removed for amnesty reasons?
As I've said previously, I'm not 100% against this warn. However, I think it goes against the purpose of the "Non-Expiration" warn and, should this warn be appealed, I think it would be wise to possibly revisit how we handle "Non-Expiration" warns as a community in the future.
+0. Guilty of the warn, and the purpose of the "No Expiration" is so that it doesn't fall off with time (meaning that forgiving a warn would go against this). Still though, I think if a permanent ban doesn't mean permanent, I don't see why (with changes to the rules themselves, I don't think singular exceptions are the best way to handle this) a No Expiration can't be forgiven either.
![[Image: QjE6Kuh.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/QjE6Kuh.gif)