in general, I agree with this. but I kinda question the sincerity and absolutely question the consistency.
if people care about doxxing and irl issues, then this place would operate a lot differently and there would be a different consensus. unfortunately it appears that certain people are happy when those who have made posts they disagree with (and not even racist or reprehensible or violent posts, just ideological and ātoneā issues) are doxxed and fucked with in real life.
in other words
first they came forā¦and I did not speak outā¦
and then they (might possibly maybe could) come for meā¦
1 Like
Are you going to pay Goofy the $80 you owe him?
1 Like
To my knowledge nobody has been doxxed, taken issue with it, and had it go unresolved. If, as a mod, that happens, I would certainly take action. Possibly even retroactively. Do you have any examples?
Victor having a normal one referencing anti-Nazi poetry in regards to his right to shitpost online.
1 Like
Itās the same level of care that @BusinessGenius has taken (tagging you in case you have comments on this issue in case I am misremembering what he wanted). As I recall, he didnāt want to have stuff he posted linked to that screen name, but he also doesnāt care who here knows his previous screen name and he started a blog thread with a partial of that name.
If you question CWās consistency, he has absolutely posted in the past about not wanting his screen name linked to his previous screen name and real name, while being ok that people here know who he is.
This is false and defamatory.
It was $90
4 Likes
Continuing where I left off, I think itās worth reviewing the circumstances under which the voters in question closed their accounts.
Voter one (call him V) requested to be banned and also demanded that money he had contributed to the forum be refunded to him. While this request made the administrator very uncomfortable, V did receive $90 and was banned in accordance with his request.
Voter two (call him M) recently requested that his account be deleted. The moderators offered instead to anonymize his account, but he was only interested in having his account deleted. In accordance with his request, his account was deleted.
The circumstances of voter three (call him J) are less clear to me. I believe that most recently he requested for his account to be anonymized, and that request was carried out. I also believe that the poster had previously (perhaps on multiple occasions) requested his account to be banned, and then later rejoined by reactivating the old account or creating a new account. J should feel free to correct the record.
In all cases, the users made their decisions to close their accounts publicly and voluntarily. In fact, each of them was given multiple chances to change their minds before closing their accounts. In no case did these users demand conditions with the closing of their accounts (other than what I have described above) such as retaining the right to vote.
I think when users depart under these circumstances, it makes sense for them to take steps to reintegrate themselves into the community if that is what they want to do. However, the first and only actions (that is until the votes came into question) that these users took upon opening new accounts was to vote in the polls at the top of this page.
For these reasons, I donāt think the votes from these people should count in this poll, and I recommend that @spidercrab add MrWookie to the moderator team.
11 Likes
His vote was never counted so itās bizarre that you keep focusing on him. No on Wookie got over 1/3 the vote without V.
You even said earlier that V is irrelevant and you were merely curious who he is
Vs vote was already deleted. It would take deleting the next two to put wookie over the bar.
I wanted to address this for two reasons. First, in case someone disputes whether it was appropriate for otatop to delete the vote in the first place, and second, to explain why I banned the new account.
This happened while the polls were open, btw.
1 Like
this is embarrassing
1 Like
There was no rule in place and no condition placed on us when our requests were granted that we would not be able to participate as members in good standing if and when we chose to make new accounts. The question of returning members was once put to a vote and passed.
Feel free to propose more stringent rules for future votes as you see fit.
I agree with all of this. So the votes should stand as they are. All votes are from known, single users. I think econo is trying to be impartial, but creating rules after the fact canāt be the way to go. All that discussion should be excised to a discussion thread for next time.
it seems absurd to me not to count votes of people who have been members of this forum since day 1.
3 Likes
Right, we have to be reasonable at some point. Thereās no explicit rule against murder, either. Everyone gets to vote once, on a gimmick or otherwise, seems reasonable to me.
They werenāt all members of this forum though since day 1. They all left.
unless they are permabanned by vote, i donāt see any valid reason for them to not be allowed to comeback. other than you know, people donāt like how they voted.