Just so we don’t lose the plot - this community has procedures in place for permabans. Meb pointed out these procedures can be abused by mods issuing excessively long bans.
His thread was mostly ignored. He then showed his point by suggesting he will ban users for 10 years (permabanning them) if he becomes mod. This was considered by most as a discord troll, same as modding sven (and nominating me). Meb then pmed the mods that he will ban CN, church and jal. No one really agreed with this plan.
I said i will reverse the bans immediately if the list changes (which i suspected as his play was fairly obvious at that point). Meb agreed that is fair. I also reminded him that church was already up for perma ban and which was voted down.
So we have a user making a mockery of the community, running off users and admins. And for some reason a certain group finds it hillarious. I recently learned to finish posts with “that shows everything you need to know”.
Why are you leaving off that I was going to ban jbro too? And that I PMed the mods a day ahead of time explaining my thoughts for not banning CN or jbro?
I’m happy to be removed as mod. I never wanted this job. But if we’re sharing, share all the details.
I missed that you made up your mind, you said you are unsure of jbro and were looking for further opinion on him.
Since im in vegas i did not read the pm. I would have reacted in the same way i promised you i would, unbanning both and tbh i always had a hope that you are joking and not about to actually abuse the community with the same loophole you pointed out as wrong.
so, if meb had also banned CN, we wouldn’t be having this same kerfuffle? is that what is being asserted? I’m confused what anyone is actually arguing here.
I had raised very early concerns about meb banning people stirring stuff up. when he posted and posts about wanting to make the community less toxic I believe him so he got my vote (despite my “friends” disagreeing/voting against).
If a user makes it clear their only intent is to cause annoyance or make the site experience worse, banning should be hardly controversial. I’d still be opposed to any bans at this point but understand his reasoning.
1 - a joke
2 - a genuine plan to improve the community by showing the problematic nature of unilateral long phased bans and pointing out the two sides involved in this long fued as opposed to single out one side as was done over and over by a very small group of users who assert ownership over the community
3 - a ruse to ban users he dislikes
1 would be prefered, i said i will let 2 play out and see the reaction hoping it will cause positive change which i hoped meb intended to, 3 was the option i hoped wont come but had to plan for and said in advance what i will do.
There’s still a pretty big tizzy almost every time, plus like the 50-100 post derail in the covid thread every time. The cycle of trolling → fighting → 2 week ban → fighting over the ban → returning from the ban and trolling… Has not let to much forum cohesion.
There was a poll to permaban church and that suggestion failed. It seems like at times whenever poll results do not satisfy a certain group they seek ways to ignore them.
maybe it’s because you were entrusted with a forum-sacred responsibility that you violated spectacularly, put virtually the entire board at each other’s throats and is still used against some posters whenever an argument happens, and that you’re allowed to still post here is mind-blowing given all of what you’re directly responsible for? just spit balling.
I clearly don’t have admin access and this can be verified by any admin
exactly what i did can be verified instantly with what I have stated by any admin by publishing the admin logs, and at this point, I think the community deserves it.
continuing to bring up a year+ old thing I haven’t been involved with at all since seems like the pretty typical playbook for you guys at this point, especially considering the current admin that just left afaict is threatening to make the site experience worse over mod decisions that have nothing to do with him.
but no, of course, I will continue to be the problem for the crime of existing.
There were several objections and clovis repeatedly said he disagreed with the entire idea. I was under the impression the PM thread had kind of come to a consensus on the whole thing but looking back clovis suggested a method where he’d agree to holding a vote where he would have voted no on bans but ultimately said we should try no bans and Yuv said he’d immediately reverse bans like he’s now publicly said he’s going to do.
This greatly downplays how big an issue that “year+ old thing” became.
gregorio stepped down from admin duties long long ago, he just still had an admin account because he did fun things with it like add emojis and has chosen to stop doing that because he doesn’t want to post here. He’s not making threats about anything he’s just getting rid of customizations he added to Discourse.
