You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
A OPEN FORUM DISCUSSION ON AN AMNESTY FOR THE BANNED SKYPOKER PLAYERS
IRISHROVER
Member Posts: 7,606
WELL SUPPOSE SINCE I THREADED IT , I BEST PUT MY TWO PENNIES WORTH IN .
THE SKYPOKER AMNESTY
ALL THE BANNED PLAYERS EXCEPT THE ONES BANNED FOR FRAUD BE ALLOWED BACK IN FORUM .
OBVIOUSLY THE PRECONDITION WOULD BE THAT THE RETURNEE'S BEHAVE .
I WOULD LIKE FORUM PEEPS FEED BACK ON THIS OR THEIR OWN THOUGHTS ON ABOVE .
BUT LETS KEEP THE THREAD CLEAN & NOT GIVE REASON FOR IT TO BE >>
DISCUSSION CLOSED LOL .
Comments
Somebody who gets out of line ought to deserve the opportunity at redemption, so I think its a good idea.
The spoken word is easy to misinterpret. Not everyone conveys their meaning through the written word well. What may seem offhand to one, may be a major issue for another.
I think amnesty with strict ruling for people who quickly re offend would be fine.
Hi Rover
I think this is a great Idea would be good to see the likes of Mickjenn1 back on the Forum
RIP a million and one people
AMBYR puts the nail of the head. I have written to people in chat windoes and texts, and been appalled by how it has been misinterpreted.
There aren't many crimes in life that lead to any life sentence - yet Sky use it on their loyal customers, frequently without really giving the accused full recourse or explanation. or opportunity for rectification.
Interesting way to make a community forum.
I disagree with the logic of the highlighted statement. People can change although granted not all will. The statement is like saying anyone who is given a custodial sentence for a second offence should just be given life as they'll just reoffend if released. I admit some States in America adopt a three strikes and life policy however this is not the case in Britain nor should it be.
Two elements of the present system do annoy me.
1) No notification/ban list for the rest of the forum. Surely it would be more productive to do this. Have a list with usernames, length of ban and reason for ban, this would reduce the rumours which run rampant and are closely followed by a 'bring back' thread.
2) I do not like the total deletion of someone's posts. Delete the offensive ones yes, but to totally wipe out members who have contributed a lot is completely wrong in my opinion.
To add to the discussion , losing punters trough banning them is obviously a loss
of rake for SKYPOKER .
I really have thought about what i am going to say here ,
following a recent ban by a fellow player ,
i believe if contacted via pm by me,
i could have had a word & the fellow player would have ,
lets say kept in line .
I wonder would skypoker ever consider having a few forum regulars
as go betweens , not mods but mediators as such .
I PERSONALLY WOULD PUT MY NAME FORWARD IF ANY SUCH POSITION
AROSE .
IT WOULD DEFO CALM A LOT OF THE US & THEM IN FORUM .
AS ALWAYS WHETHER FOR OR AGAINST ABOVE,
OPINIONS WELCOME .
I think that treating the Forum users as adults will encourage the community to self-police a little more. I also believe that if Sky could show a little levity on occasion (specifics of occasion being judged on its relative merits), this would be taken as being a Jolly Good Thing by the rest of the community, and would not encourage the kind of free-for-all hysteria that perhaps Sky anticipate.
A little less of the schoolroom mistress and a little more of the facilitator please Sky.
I got a ban recently for 1 week. I accused something and someone of a fix.
I realised afterwards what a mistake i,d made and that my argument had no substance to it and was basically caught at a bad time in a bad mood and did genuinly regret it
Luckily for me it was only a week and I,ve leant my lesson, but if it had been for life I think it would be unfair as ppl do change and I would rather see temporary bans eg - 1 week - 1 month - 6 months depending on the severity and if they do it again then ban them for life but i,m all for giving ppl a second chance and a s Tommy says its a bit unfair when someone posts hundreds or thousands of posts only to get them all deleted after making 1 mistake
Paul
In Internet forums and online multiplayer games, the host of the game often has the power to ban players who do not follow the rules, or who make little effort to get along with fellow players. If a football player gets a red card we don't give him amnesty and say its OK you carry on playing, In cricket LBW is out would you say stay there i give you amnesty? Out is Out Banned is banned until such time sky see fit to lift the ban.
Only my opinion Thank you for letting me share this LOL
Kindest Regards rawhand
ND: There's not a day goes by I don't feel regret. Not because I'm in here, or because you think I should. I look back on the way I was then: a young, stupid kid who committed that terrible crime. I want to talk to him. I want to try and talk some sense to him, tell him the way things are. But I can't. That kid's long gone and this old man is all that's left. I got to live with that. Rehabilitated? It's just a bullsh^^ word. So you go on and stamp your form, sonny, and stop wasting my time. Because to tell you the truth, I don't give a sh**.
How would you propose this would be implemented?
Let's say over the last 4 years Sky Poker has been running 300+ people have been forum / chat banned. I don't think that's an unreasonable number given the vast majority of players don't go near the forum and just get banned at the tables. I've played enough night time low level cash to know it must be a regular occurrence.
So we have 300+ cases to look into. Many of which would have been given prior warnings. So someone needs to look into each case (that's assuming evidence still exists for prior warnings, previous reports, chat logs, forum posts, etc, from at least the past 4 years) and check if it was a ban due to fraud, unacceptable language, abuse, threatening behaviour, collusion, racism, spam, ****, libel, defamation, etc etc.
But all those are ok except for fraud?
What about the player who was threatened or racially abused or colluded against and reported that attacker then finds themselves the next day sat at the same table?
You are of course correct; this would be near impossible to implement. But this shouldn't preclude a discussion as to the merits of revoking bans. Of particular interest with respect to Neildown, was his lack of an avenue to express regret or retract. This is something that *some* mods do avail themselves of, even if it is by deleting their offending post. What a luxury to have.