Noted. Does this apply to those currently in Admin Jail? 

The rules are clear, and I assume the intent is to protect the community. But I feel whether that is achieved by the rules needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, ideally before the punishment (loss of anonymity or restricted upper participation) is put in effect. The signed-off on by staff comment allows for that, but it feels that the verdict lays very close to the people who decided about the initial violation just moments earlier. If the request for review comes close after the initial violation, that might be a challenging choice.

Let's take last week as example, from my perspective, without knowing the details.

• Aizen was part of a well organised East Coast.
• The East Coast could've, but didn't hold the community strangled.
• The attack was a result of playing the game, nothing to personal.
• The war took long, but played out in a fair and civil way.
• The apparent mistake from Aizen were accusations (I'm not judging this case)
• Aizen gets Admin wacked and reset to the start of the game loop.

If their next account gets labelled with their character history (or at least the DD'd part), the following (could) happen:

• It invites skepticism towards a player and puts them behind other players.
• It reduces their chance of building an efficient neutral or revenge career; whatever their goal. It reduces a possible element of excitement for the community (Yes, I like war more than Jailbreak XP sessions. I hope we all do.).
• Worst, it invites bloodlining, which typically is considered an offence against fair play and the community.

In short, I don't see how the punishments help the community forward.

Sure, the violation shouldn't have been made. DD is the punishment. I don't see reason for their next play to be impacted as their play didn't hurt the community. I also don't want to side-step the fact that an admin can be hurt, and they are as much part of the community as players. I also know Aizen wouldn't be impacted here, due to the timelines. It's just an example. But it is an example where I think the announced rules wouldn't fit well.

I don't really know other recent examples, but say a player has a violation regarding, cheating, abuse or racism. That would be fine to punish as that's a person I wouldn't want to play with. It's a difficult line to draw, but I feel that were it's drawn by this announcement is not the right place.

Respectfully,
Expert

From today forward, all new admin wacks and admin jails will permanently be displayed on all future users profiles, unless signed off on by staff.

could this be a more appropriate thing for the player comission to decide on? essentially allow users/players to determine the outcome as to eleviatethe burden on the admins to further distance any conspiracies that might arise in the future?

even an account(one vote per verified account with enough play time hours) sided anonymous poll could help determine this, if the majority says "yes display it" it would help with even more justification