Denied [Network Wide Suggestion] Option to void contracts with Permbanned

In Game Name:

Jdawger​

What part of EcoCityCraft is this suggestion for:

Network Wide​

Short title for your suggestion:

Option to void contracts with Permbanned​

What are you suggesting:

If a user in a contract gets Permabanned while the contract is active, then all non-Permabanned parties can decide if they want that contract voided without the say of the Permabanned party. If this is the case, the party(ies) can decide if they want to drop the contract where it is currently without reverting (meaning both sides don't need to follow any of the binding terms anymore, but any payments/actions stay with their current party) or if it should be reverted back to where it was before the contract was approved.

They would need to file a forum contract for staff to approve to legally get it voided There, they would need to say the status of the contract and how they want it voided (whether if they want it reverted back to before the contract was approved or if the contract just drops at its current point). Staff would then need to approve that contract for it to be voided, and they would have the final say if the contract can be voided in the way the non-banned parties wish (with the obvious voting that happens for all other contracts).

In the case where things cannot be reverted back (i.e. VMR booklet or point contracts, build contracts, land clearing contracts, Skyblock block placing contracts, etc.), depending on what the non-permabanned parties decide, staff would decide what a fair payout would be for a contract to be satisficed/voided fairly based off how far along in the contract the parties are.​

Why is this a good addition for EcoCityCraft?:

@WeirdBuilder might have a better explanation for this since we were discussing this tonight, but Permabanned players are supposed to be permanently banned for breaking the rules too much/too hard, so why should the person on the other side of a contract need to still be bound by this agreement when they don't know when or if the Permabanned player is going to return? Giving the rule-following parties this option will give them ease of mind (if they so choose to void it) and will avoid any troubles the rule-followers might face when/if the permabanned returns unexpectedly.

Plus, with all the Permabanned players we have, how many of them actually have active contracts/how many future permabanned players will we have that do have active contracts? Probably not that many honestly. And with that low number, how many other parties involved with those contracts would actually go this route? Probably less than the amount of Permabanned players who are still involved with contracts.
Point of that last paragraph is, I don't think this would be too taxing on our staff since it won't be really that common for them to see.​

Other information:

1.) Now, I can see how this can be unfair to the Permabanned player, but tbh, they were the ones who broke the rules so much that they are not welcome on the server. IMO, why should we have the party(ies) who follow the rules need to be binded by a contract when they have no idea when/if the Permabanned player is coming back or not (plus, if the Permabanned player doesn't come back for a long time, and the players following the rules either stopped playing or are taking a break, who's saying that the Permabanned player won't file a complaint against the rule follower for not holding their end).

2.) I'm also thinking this should be treated like town claims for Permabanned players: Parties that want to pursue this would need to wait at least seven days after the Permabanned player was permabanned before they can legally void the contract.

3.) It's 3am for me and this idea is fresh in my head. My logic might be off slightly, so if there is some logistical stuff that I missed or is flawed, please let me know.
Also @WeirdBuilder , since you were the one who originally came up with this idea, let me know any thoughts or anything too.​

Plugin or custom addition:

​

One suggestion per form:

I Understand.​

 

I have thought of this situation, and it was a tricky one to think of a solution. What I was thinking is the non-banned players need to file an official forum contract for staff to approve, just the Permabanned player doesn't need to agree to have it void. Obviously in this case, staff have the right to say that the contract cannot be voided depending on the terms.

I can see the issue here, but in the end, staff have the final say; it's not like the parties can magically say "this is void" and then it just is (I'll edit the suggestion to reflect this better because I failed to bring that point across).

Ideally, it would go something like this:

IGN:
Player 2:

Users Involved:
Player 1

Terms of contract:
Voiding contract because Player 1 is permabanned (insert forum or ingame contract here).


[Ideally, they would state the progress of the contract and how they want it voided, but if not, I was thinking the staff member handling this would then ask the party(ies) that aren't permabanned the status and wishes with this voiding, and once they get that, they would decide if they can void it or not {Note for people who weren't staff before: it takes I believe at least two other staff members to decide on a contract being approved or not (maybe three. IDR), so this isn't just one staff member deciding}]