Which did nothing untoward. It’s not a banned poster. It’s not a duplicate vote. It’s not hiding who owns the account. There is no reason why such an account should be ineligible.
1 Like
That being the case, why is anyone even still pretending at RFCs here?
Seems this always comes down to:
A: Sabo was banned using the forum’s accepted process.
B: That process wasn’t followed.
Some members of A: Yes it was liar (even though it clearly wasn’t).
Other members of A: Doesn’t matter.
Seems like bad faith imo.
Do the results of the poll even matter at this point? For instance, we now sort of created a 60% threshold for perma’s that is a weird interpretation of another rule. Thus, if somehow Victor were to show that less than 60% of legitimate voters supported the the ban, would that change anyone’s opinion?
My sense is everyone just like arguing about it at this point.
You can uncover the mystery by looking at @Willreads’s one post.
There have been multiple permanent bans before and after this one that didn’t go through an RFC, and there is no established rule that doing so is required.
1 Like
So I ask again:
That being the case, why is anyone even still pretending at RFCs here?
Like mods do whatever you want. And folks like CN should stop lying about why and how Sabo was banned.
We tried to establish rules (NBZ started a thread on it), but never reached a resolution. For the most part the mods have been just making it up as they go.
I dreamed up the RFC process to be a way that we could collectively and openly make and change rules, and a decent quorum of the community bought in. Up to this point, no one has made or changed any rules about a process for permanent bans. Moderators from the very beginning of this forum have been empowered to permanently ban people. Mod actions have sometimes been met with a community referendum and overturned.
Those things are all certain. The Keeed post on Sabo’s ban to me looks like a community referendum that ended up endorsing the mod action of the permaban.
Lol. I’m the most popular poster in your head and nowhere else.
2 Likes
I don’t think you’ll like establishing the precedent that mods can just go against a community vote if they want to change their minds but the community doesn’t.
Except that full RFC process you dreamed up was explicitly not followed for upholding Sabo’s ban, but here you are again pretending it somehow was.
If the RFC process was not required, and not followed in full, why are you still referencing it when it comes to Sabo’s ban.
This is all obfuscation. Again.
1 Like
No, I fully acknowledge that Sabo wasn’t banned by RFC. I don’t think he has to be, based on the current rules. I keep talking about RFCs because Sabo’s allies keep yammering about how an RFC wasn’t followed, as if that is a thing that matters despite there not being any rule that it has to be.
I told you. Mods are empowered to make permanent bans, and mod actions have been subject to community referendum.
So back to my original point, why are we even pretending RFC process matters when it doesn’t. And why is it constantly brought up to justify upholding Sabo’s ban when it wasnt used .
2 Likes
The captains have filibustered any attempt to make rules about permabans via the RFC process, since it takes 60 percent to do anything, so unfortunately, there are none. Moderators have mod powers. Mod’s have the ability to permaban someone. Since there is no actual rule about it, seems like that ability also means they can.
They do matter. We have used it to make rules that are followed.
Except when they aren’t because some just decide not to follow the referendum process.
Except they weren’t followed here.
And your rationale seems to be they don’t need to be followed, so it doesn’t matter.
This is straight circular logic. It’s bs and should be obvious why many here call it that.
Do you find it appalling that people are subject to tempbans without an RFC? I don’t, because it’s an ordinary mod power. Same thing with permanent bans. If you want to make it a rule that there has to be a process for permanent bans, you’re welcome to go for it. We have a process for that.
RFC is a process for changing rules. It is not established that it has to be used for permanent bans.
Sabo’s perma was converted to temp ban by a mod and the whole reason he was then re perma’d is because supposedly the community decided as such, which it didn’t.
On what grounds was Sabo reperma’d since he hardly posted anything upon returning and certainly nothing banworthy.
Why does this thread even exist? It doesn’t matter what the results are anyway, as we’ve already seen, and as you have already confirmed now multiple times.
Again, mod actions have on several occasions been subject to community referendum, and the community vote has either upheld or overturned the mod action.