Drahque revouch

[supersexyy]

Only vouched players can vote.

[Diablo_]

Supersexyy is right. Only the players who are part of the LIHL forum group can vote on the polls.

[pewpew lasergun]

A ban for mh according to ENT rules is 1 year if I am not mistaken.
It can be appealed and approved if properly done before the 1 year ends.

I have raised the concern with Hbc revouch request that only a handful of lihl players vote on the forum, mostly new vouches who don't even know who you are, and thus does not reflect the lihl community as a whole. lihl is not 20 players.

however from the last hbc revouch request, management made it clear that a voting majority of 80-90% is required, 12 players have already voted No, which means you need 48 players to vote Yes, to reach 80%.
thats not gona happen for u or anyone else who maphacked before with a poll.

I think a comments thread is better than a poll for maphacking.

Good luck.

[Diablo_]

29 out of 97 players voted on HBC's poll, that's more than enough to reflect the community's opinion (and 20-30 of the 97 are more or less inactive).

[hadora]

I agree bout the fact ppl should explain their vote.
I'm against His back. Nothing against the player (i never played with) but my opinion is that there is no "going back" after maphack issue. A community is all about confidence in each others and i'm not use to trusting ppl who cheated/lied for weeks/years.
Last but not least, being tough about those decision is also a good way to discourage ppl cheating.

[Jamo]

@Drahque I don't know you. But for me your case is different from HBC because of the long time you have been out already and the posts you make here make sense, I can believe what you say and think a second chance is fair.

I just wanted to add a word about the anonymus polls. Imo they should be anonymus, you get the truth from each player and that's what you want. Simply because now two polls may turn out not in the favor of some people that are more actively writing here than others, doesn't mean that's a wrong system. Ofc people hesitate and don't feel too comfy writing "I dont want xxx back in the league" publicly. Becuase nobody wants to offend anyone, i guess. I still wrote my opinion in HBC's and Drahque's case and also had quite some discussions with HBC who fought on me telling me I cannot even properly because I was too new. However, I really put lots of effort in that, reading every post about that topic etc before I made a vote. Then I explained and u still get offended even though I voted for what the majority of the people voted, not like I was an outsider. So, it's good to have a discussion about the topic, but not everyone wants (or imo has) to explain himself voting.
But, to maybe do a more unbiased vote, one could switch off the possibility to view the results before having voted. But I'm not sure this is necessary

Just my 2 cents,
Jamo

[dweiler]

I think the discussion is pretty much summarized by @hadora to say 'no' and @nore to say 'yes' (+a few arguments particular for the case). Both are right in some ways. I don't think it's needed for everyone to explain, it will just keep going in circles between those two points of view and lead to frustration.

[Drahque]

I agree, I thought a bit about it, and it's not required for anyone to explain their vote. For one simple reason, if a player did get in the League, it's somehow a "bad" thing for the people who vote know. Some people "tend" to have a grudge on people. I'm not one of those, but in general there is some out there, and therefore people shouldn't be required to share their votes un-anonymously. It should indeed be a free choice.

However, I really put lots of effort in that, reading every post about that topic etc before I made a vote. Then I explained and u still get offended even though I voted for what the majority of the people voted, not like I was an outsider. So, it's good to have a discussion about the topic, but not everyone wants (or imo has) to explain himself voting.

I highly respect, that you take your time to look into the case. I would personally do the same if it was the other way around.

[BA_Fail]

I have a problem with the wording of the poll

[Diablo_]

Care to elaborate?

[BA_Fail]

Do you want, and should he be allowed to join are two different thing. But doubt it matters anyways, just being nitpicky

[Drahque]

Do you want, and should he be allowed to join are two different thing. But doubt it matters anyways, just being nitpicky

True, and it doesn't clarify if it's direct join or a trial. Maybe it should be: "Do you think that Drahque should be given a trial period?"

[Qvist]

You have cheated for whatever reasons I don't know ?
I will bet your hornor that you have learned your lesson since you are probably older in your head now
Give the man the second chance he deserves to prove that he indeed acted in stupidness.

Good luck.

[GoatsBeGone]

I dont Even understand why a poll is nessesary when his ban was permanent. Why would U Even concider letting a person back with his history of excessive lying, manipulation and Flaming/causing drama, and on top of That he did maphack its obvious from All the chances he have gotten That he is unlikely and unwiling to change

[Dong]

I dont Even understand why a poll is nessesary when his ban was permanent. Why would U Even concider letting a person back with his history of excessive lying, manipulation and Flaming/causing drama, and on top of That he did maphack its obvious from All the chances he have gotten That he is unlikely and unwiling to change

2 years have past allready....