That’s a fair point. I’d be against banning all gimmicks though. Maybe just ban the ones that aren’t funny.
1 Like
7 Likes
There was a discussion of gimmicks voting in polls when the RFC process was instituted. We chose to make RFC polls public so that the forum could audit the results.
1 Like
Agreed. Most people like to claim we don’t need more rules, we just need better/fairer enforcement of the current broad rules we have. But then we seem to always devolve into stupid arguments because we don’t have rule (e.g. who can vote, what is a “personal attack”) that are unanswerable since it’s just based on everyone’s personal opinion of what is the right answer.
1 Like
No idea why we would need a rfc to ban gimmicks from voting in polls. That’s just basic forum common law, totally uncontroversial.
Please don’t do this. I know you are intentionally nitpicking.
You know the thread was about banning gimmicks in general, at least ones that are made to circumvent bans. One consequence of doing so would be to prevent the very thing that is happening now. I even literally JUST said the same thing to meb.
2 Likes
I would consider requiring a certain trust level for suffrage and locking gimmicks at a lower trust level.
1 Like
Read has never posted so how would it have been banned? You can ban it and j man reading right now for voting in a poll as a gimmick, no one will object in the slightest. Again, basic forum common law.
4 Likes
Ban them and see if anyone makes a thing of it.
4 Likes
Agree with Keeed. It would not be controversial.
What happened to the other RFC anyway? Did someone shut it down somehow?
2 Likes
I too thought that your name was a reference to the number of days of your last ban. I’ve been wondering why you haven’t updated to 7even yet.
2 Likes
Ridiculous and hyperbolic criticism of a brand new mod who was clearly just trying to keep a thread on track and tone down some arguments = “just fine,” but criticizing the poster who levied that criticism against the mod = “part of the problem.”
You’ve posted about your feelings of frustration with that RFC quite a bit, but I’m not sure what you really wanted to happen. AFAICT, the reason it didn’t go further is that you didn’t post a poll with the final language for people to vote on so it could move on to a final vote. Why not? You’re blaming the world at large for the failure of a process which didn’t work because you didn’t lead it well and push it to a conclusion. It didn’t even actually fail unless I’m missing something, it’s just waiting on you to post some language for the proposal. If you just post a proposal that explicitly states what everyone thinks is obvious (posters banned for bad behavior can’t just ignore the ban by creating a gimmick) and hedges on what people disagree on (self-bans), it seems like it has a good shot to pass.
Cite.
2 Likes
Current votes.
Possibly shady voters
Yes:
- QRomo
- Read
No:
- jmanreading220
- ArizonaRonFromTucson
- brooktrout
- GrittyNHL
If anyone believes that there are votes that should not be included in the final tally, either post here or PM me at @spidercrab. (I am only logged in to this admin account when I do the rare adminning.)
Also, it would be useful to indicate on what basis you think the vote should not be included.
Goddammit, somehow ponied on this by bobman.
4 Likes