I certainly have the higher ground here than someone taking a vote and then claiming voice of the community with a clear minority. But he didn’t even claim that. When he acted he clearly said he understood the result of the vote and that he was going to do it anyway, tough luck, don’t like it de-mod me.
Just a point of clarification, are you referring to the poll that I made about two of NBZ’s posts itt? I don’t recall cuse making a poll or acting based on a poll; he said as long as he is mod he’s going to tempban ppl with a pattern of violent posts, poll didnt enter into it.
The poll I made could have been written more precisely because as such it was just asking the community how it viewed the posts, I gave three options: ban worthy, not my cup of tea but not ban worthy, and basically fine. Based on the results, it is fair to infer that the majority of people would not tempban/ban nbz based on these posts, but I wasn’t asking for a vote for a specific modding outcome, I wanted to get a sense of where people stood on the posts themselves.
1 Like
Fair enough. I thought he called for the vote.
Although I like NBZ, I’ve got no problem with the 48-hour ban.
1 Like
USA in a nutshell
Not bad. Kind of a compromise. Allows people to just take the ban if they think its deserved, which does happen fairly often.
If someone is banned though how do they make the challenge? A mod has to discuss it with them first? What about when it’s an obvious spam account? And then what if it’s maybe a spam account or maybe just to complete troll?
I like this.
1 Like
Do we need indisputable evidence to overturn?
2 Likes
And all bans are automatically reviewed if they occur within the last 2 months before an election.
5 Likes
A mod (or whomever has access to our email listing) creates a challenge flag gmail account.
If you don’t have one on file, that’s on you. Failing to ban-plan is planning to something something.
You know nbz (and certain others) would be throwing the ban flag on everyone else just to fuck with us.
We can’t review the banning until after the election.
3 Likes
This picture if him is awful because he almost looks human.
That’s bc he’s flush from a fresh blood transfusion of the innocent.
Notice the color in his cheeks.
2 Likes
There was a vote about perma banning him, the result was no, then I later temp banned him for something else - as you said. A few people are taking it out of context to troll/gaslight.
This is a lie. Here is the text of post 211 where the poll can be found
No reference to the length of the ban is in here
That’s what I meant when I said “if someone complains” and here you are getting all those likes just because you said “challenge flag” or something!
2 Likes
Sounds like you’re a ban plan Stan.
-
Am I smrk4?
-
Did the poll take into effect his pattern of posting?
-
Did the poll take into effect that he’d been warned?
-
Did I ban him for the posts in that poll, anyway?
If you answered no four times, you’d be right. I’m not the one who put a poll up on those posts, and I actually gave him a final warning for one of the posts in the poll - not a ban, then I gave him a temp ban for a future transgression and a second temp ban after that for yet another issue.
If you’re going to call me a liar, you better get the facts straight.
This thread is what happens when someone is judged by a jury of their peers, but that jury gives equal weight to those who sit in and listen closely to the two-week trial and those dudes grunching 600-post threads for a couple minutes each time they take a dump.
4 Likes