RFC — David Sklansky should be banned from posting on this site

Please vote to approve (or not) the wording of the following proposed rule:

Proposed Rule: David Sklansky should be banned from posting on this site.

Relevant link with more context for the proposed rule: Two Plus Two Poker Forums - View Single Post - This website has been purchased by us. What is the future of 2+2?

Do you approve of the wording for this proposed rule?
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

Poll closes 8/24/2021. If a majority votes in favor of the wording, the proposed rule will be put to a forum-wide vote.

Assuming that this is a yes, what is the threshold for the actual vote to ban?

Based on Sabo’s ban, it’s not more than 59%

1 Like

2 posts were merged into an existing topic: Bickering about old drama

Sabo poll was open for a week from June 26 to July 3

1 Like

According to this set of rules:

The proposed rule will be adopted if it receives support from at least two thirds of all voters for moderator appointments or if it receives support from at least 60 percent of voters for all other rules .

Since this does not relate to a moderator appointment, it seems clear that banning him would require 60% approval.

1 Like

A ban is not a rule.

Sabo is not banned?

Oh yeah, sabo got perma by misclick and then RFC needed to undo misclick.

Chads unbanned him so the result of the poll was to enact a ban

Hard to remember. He was accidentally perma’d, there was a vote to unban that was 60/40 for unban, he was unbanned, but no one locked the poll, people kept voting and he was eventually banned at 59% and at that point the poll was locked.

Is that right?

Well, that’s precedent, so can you try to accidentally ban Sklansky?

Chads reversed the ban independent of the poll

https://unstuckpolitics.com/t/log-of-key-moderator-actions/502/317?u=goreo

Is that soul reading? There was an unban poll running, right?

See my edit. Chads unbanned him about 24 hours after keed started that unban thread

As a follow-up: I’m not a moderator, just a sometimes admin. And the benefit of the admin role is that I don’t make judgment calls. I thought that this was a straightforward interpretation of how to proceed. If others disagree, for any reason, I’m not going to unilaterally act on my interpretation.

1 Like

I was going up say this. I defended Zimmerman because of evidence so ban me if we are banning for stuff outside here I guess.

I get the idea but is it really necessary?

1 Like

No, it’s not. We have mods here who continued to work for 2+2 for free who knew exactly what David did. And posters, like me, who continued to post there for years after finding out.

3 Likes

If people liked SE, the poker parts or particular posters, what choice did they really have? Quit 2p2 because the owners are idiots and weirdos but you never interact with them and now you don’t interact with people you do enjoy? A lot of big forums, from reddit to iGN to whatever don’t have a great history.

2 Likes

I think what’s meant is that it wasn’t.

1 Like

I mean, we all came here because of the ownership yeah? I didn’t even know the DS posting here was real.

1 Like