They do matter. We have used it to make rules that are followed.
Except when they arenât because some just decide not to follow the referendum process.
Except they werenât followed here.
And your rationale seems to be they donât need to be followed, so it doesnât matter.
This is straight circular logic. Itâs 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 donât, because itâs 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, youâre 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.
Saboâs perma was converted to temp ban by a mod and the whole reason he was then re permaâd is because supposedly the community decided as such, which it didnât.
On what grounds was Sabo repermaâd since he hardly posted anything upon returning and certainly nothing banworthy.
Why does this thread even exist? It doesnât matter what the results are anyway, as weâve 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, youâre 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 wasnât completed and youâve argued it doesnât matter anyway.
So why are you referring to it (again) to justify the legitimacy of Saboâs ban.
You again go in circles.
So letâs 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 donât think anything would actually help or make a positive difference at this point. Itâs just an unfortunate disease that just gets collectively worse for everyone who continues to participate at an equal or greater level.
I donât really understand this whole RFC discussion. Maybe because I refuse to understand what RFC even is.
Itâs 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 anyoneâs death. He was, and probably still is, a very annoying poster to some (including myself - i voted yes on his perma). Iâm 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 isnât 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 canât re-visit a perm (especially a bullshit one) so therefore that means you can.
Because, as Iâve 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 wasnât an RFC is irrelevant. It was a community vote.
Exactly. The whole RFC process is irrelevant, when you or someone else decides they arenât relevant
So why all the RFCs on the board?
This is still going in never ending circles.
This was my exact thinking when creating this thread, inspired by jmakin only having âa few gimmick accounts nukedâ in the other RFC OP. I donât remember seeing many Sabo posts so I have no skin in his ban and may be off on the details so I legitimately wanted comments on his ban.