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.
I understand that you think so, but we have no rule establishing that it is different. An effort to codify the distinction fell flat.
I mean, you’re the one telling us all to think that a thread called Sabo Permaban Confirmation was obviously and facially not, in fact, a Sabo permaban confirmation.
But the RFC process there wasn’t completed and you’ve argued it doesn’t matter anyway.
So why are you referring to it (again) to justify the legitimacy of Sabo’s ban.
You again go in circles.
So let’s review Sabo ban and see how the community feels?
1 Like
The craziest part of this to me is that Sabo is a very obviously elite poster regardless of your opinion of the tone of his posts. Whole thing is baffling
1 Like
Sabo is not currently banned.
I don’t think anything would actually help or make a positive difference at this point. It’s just an unfortunate disease that just gets collectively worse for everyone who continues to participate at an equal or greater level.
I don’t really understand this whole RFC discussion. Maybe because I refuse to understand what RFC even is.
It’s been a ~year. Sabo, afaik, did not create any gimmicks or evade his ban/silence in any way. Is it that far fetched to re-examine this perma within the community? afaik Sabo wants to post here again. He did not hack or doxx anyone. He was not racist or celebrated anyone’s death. He was, and probably still is, a very annoying poster to some (including myself - i voted yes on his perma). I’m genuinely sure that someone like El-Paso has concrete reasons that he can share if he likes to why sabo should remained silenced.
Is there any procedure we can think of to re-open a perma ban for discussion again?
4 Likes
Otatop, when you say Sabo isn’t permabanned, are you saying he is not perma silenced but is free to participate here like any other poster?
Using wookie logic, there is no rule that says you can’t re-visit a perm (especially a bullshit one) so therefore that means you can.
Because, as I’ve previously stated, community votes to uphold or overturn mod actions have been a thing as long as UP has been a thing. The fact that it wasn’t an RFC is irrelevant. It was a community vote.