I mean I’m pretty sure the mods did exactly what you suggested in the poll thread by saying that if by some miracle the poll came down to 1 or 2 deciding votes the duplicate votes would be discarded.
The final tally for the second rule ended up being 67 votes for Yes and 39 votes for No, if we throw out @Read’s yes vote and @jman220reading and @ArizonaRonFromTucson’s no votes, literally nothing about the vote changes.
Ok, makes sense. Wookie seemed to be suggesting that the mods vetted “Ron” and everything checked out. Meaning, his vote would have counted. Which seems preposterous to me. Sounds like you are saying it wouldn’t have? Which is common sense to me.
bobman brought up a list of potential fake voters here and the discussion that followed seemed like spidercrab agreed to discount votes made by “suspicious” accounts if it came down to it.
It kind of feels like we’re kicking the can here: we’re really not going to worry about what we do about potential “suspicious” votes until it actually matters. It really seems like a community vote setting clear rules for this now could spare us some drama down the road.
I agree with this. I solicited a list of suspicious votes so that I could feel like I was doing something. But I didn’t actually have a plan for what to do if the vote hinged on suspicious votes. I certainly don’t think I have any authority to make a decision like that.
Seems like it should be pretty uncontroversial to establish voting rules, like:
I don’t think anybody objected when you asked.
Can we get jman220 reading or whatever it is permanent banned too as it should save more flair ups in the future.
And it should have been banned the previous time and time before that for showing up while banned so it’s an accumulation of these that has occurred.
And fairness would be upping jmans ban the same way Watevs ban has increased because of rudeness if all was fair and equal imo.
I agree that some kind of voting rules make sense, but would like to propose that we find a way to make sure that our registered lurkers get a vote. I think we’ve established that registered lurkers are part of the community, and we’ve queried them for their opinions in the past, so we should be able to agree (lol right?) on some metric regarding posts read or site visits, etc.
Cite? I can’t even remember whining about a ban on me, let alone others. Meh, maybe it was Fidget’s ban, for him posting in a PM (tusk)
Have a good day.
I’m fine with someone creating an RFC for this, but I do think there’s a pretty miniscule possibility of a future vote potentially being determined by unscrupulous voters. We haven’t historically had a lot of razor-thin margins, and it shouldn’t be that hard to deal with any real problems ad-hoc.
Agree with the first part. Strongly disagree with the second.
Ronnie James Dio was a better singer than Ozzy and I’m tired of pretending he wasn’t.
Ban
DanFromCannes
Regarding bans of gimmicks.
The standard is going to be.
You arent going to get any kind of consistency or coverage of all gimmicks like this. And that needs to be okay.
In terms of extending bans for the original account. Im open to it, but only if you can show it makes this place better. Just feels like punishment to me, and the controls in place seem sufficient to prevent shitty posting while banned.
It’s great we have that log of moderators actions now. Your 9 week old quote might get us banished to ‘bickering about old forum drama’
Ah yes, that was the FakeRiverman saga - don’t think there were many gimmicks pre that date. I regged FakeChurchill (RIP) shortly after.
Might have been a perma on 22 to post under a gimmick. Easy to confuse one forum rules with another.
DebbieDoesDallas
