One of my friends was banned from an early Internet forum in 1996, he was age 15 at the time.
Last year, in 2011, after being elected to his municipality's parks board, he was able to ask for, and receive without problem, his permaban to be overturned.
This raises two questions and two situations in my mind. Both of which are very very silly. I'd like to know which one STO endorses.
1 - Permabans are truly Permanent.
If someone who is 13 does something and gets permabanned, this person will still be banned at age 31, and, at age 81. Even if this person's twin brother commits murder, he has a better chance of getting out of prison by age 81 than this guy does of having his ban reversed. This, of course, is very very silly.
2 - Permabans are not Permanent
If someone who is 40 does something and gets permabanned, he could petition to be unbanned even the very next year so long as he could prove that he's improved his behaviour. This of course means that the "permanent" part of a "permanent" ban is nothing more than letters, which is of course, very very silly.