No, not literally whenever, but when there aren’t explicit rules, of course. You keep trumpeting how a rule making and changing process wasn’t followed when the action in question wasn’t making or changing a rule, or doing something contrary to rules. It was a mod action. We don’t have RFCs every time a mod acts, because mods are empowered to act and always have been.
Sounds like you should establish community standards for quorum, but right now, we have none.
How well do you feel their “mod actions” worked out for the first wave of mods, in hindsight?
Lol Frezi. Don’t ever change.
You too, 'man.
2 Likes
Results are in!
I believe we now move on to having an admin create a poll in this thread asking the question “Should Sabo be permanently banned?” and then vote on it for 7 days.
RFC procedure has not been followed. You can try again with a public poll on the wording of the question as the rule stipulates.
1 Like
Per Wookie RFCs don’t matter and aren’t binding so that seems unnecessary
Happy Friday everyone!
3 Likes
Great Scott, you’re right. What a fool I was. And as goofy pointed out Sabo is currently not banned so the wording should be something like:
“Should Sabo be unsilenced and allowed to post on Unstuck Politics?”
I request @spidercrab or @olink create a poll within this RFC thread to approve the wording for the proposal. Upon receipt of such request, a Forum Administrator shall use the Administrative Account to create a public poll stating the proposed wording of the rule with the choices of “Yes” or “No.” The poll shall remain open for a period of one week . If the poll receives support from a majority of voters , the proposal will proceed to a binding rule vote. Otherwise, debate on the proposal may continue and any user can again request a vote on wording within the RFC thread.
EDIT: Request retracted.
2 Likes
Nah. If you’re filing an RFC, you should follow the RFC procedure. If you’re just posting a referendum on a particular mod action, we have no particular rules.
Can we speed this up a bit
1 Like
Any user could have made the Admin request to start the poll to formalize the wording of The Question™ on Monday so we collectively dropped the ball on moving this along.
Mos Def had such an incredible chill vibe. We don’t talk about that enough.
I propose the following wording:
“Should Sabo, a poster who leads a group of individuals who refer to themselves as “The Captains,” who have started their own forum, to which you are not invited, and who have declared that their only purpose for continuing to post in unstuck politics is to try to burn the place down, be unsilenced?”
I request a vote on this wording.
If you’re just going to make shit up why not say they eat babies or something that’ll really get people worked up?
2 Likes
In this post I retracted a request previously made in this thread. Normally I would just delete the post entirely but that rustled jimmies as being an abuse of mod powers so instead I’m editing it to say this.
Sorry in advance - this is going to be a long post. The tl/dr is I’m likely going to unsilence Sabo.
Initially, I was planning to wait for this to go through the formal RFC process as my understanding was that his initial ban was based on the first RFC. However, I now realize that was mistaken and that Wookie banned Sabo on his own discretion (which is valid, even if it’s not how I would handle a perma). Thus, given that his initial ban was based on mod discretion, I don’t think we need to wait for a formal RFC to release him. I’ve consulted with @otatop and he does not object to me circumventing the RFC process he set in motion.
As for why, I think it’s appropriate to use my discretion and undo the ban, there are a few reasons:
(1) Sabo has served his ban without issue. As far as I can tell, he’s not created any alts (yes, he created his own forum, but I don’t see how we can blame him for doing that when he was perma’d here, did we expect him just to disappear from the internet). He’s also been very respectful in PMs with me regarding his ban - simply presenting his case in a polite manner (this despite the fact I even voted for his ban).
(2) I’ve gone back and reviewed Sabo’s posting history, and he added solid content (e.g. baseball content, random LC stuff). So it’s not like he was just here to troll or create drama.
(3) I think ultimately an RFC is going to vote to unban him, and see no reason to drag out the process and drama. I realize that the current vote isn’t official since it’s private, but I doubt we have that many alts here to vote. Given that he wasn’t originally banned by an RFC - but mod discretion - I would require 60% in favor of the ban to uphold, which I don’t see any way that is going to happen at this point in terms of how the forum views permas (i.e. if church and jmakin didn’t get 60%, I’d be shocked if Sabo would).
22 Likes
I support this approach. Thanks for documenting it out!
4 Likes
Oh man cool beans how community input is so important to decisions here! So important that we use some random shit private poll that we have no idea who voted in to override a much larger public poll demanded by sabo himself.
Community modding at its finest
2 Likes