RFC: Permabans

About Unstuck
#1

I’ve been dragging my feet on writing this, which I have promised, but I think we should have an RFC to lock down procedures for a permaban.

In general, no member of this community shall be permanently banned without a vote by the community. Such a vote shall be initiated by a moderator and take the form of an RFC to discuss banning the member followed by a separate thread to record the vote, in accordance with established procedure for an RFC. The vote threshold for a permanent ban shall be:

  • 60%
  • 66.67%
  • 75%
  • Other

0 voters

The following are exceptions and may be permanently banned by a moderator without ratification by the forum users:

  • Obvious spam accounts
  • Obvious troll accounts, including gimmicks from established posters
  • New accounts by posters who have been involuntarily permabanned (posters who have voluntarily asked for a permaban can come back under a new user name)
  • New accounts for evading a temporary ban
  • New accounts by posters who have made a wager on this forum with a permanent ban being a condition of the wager

Any involuntary permanent ban may be undone via the RFC process with the same vote threshold as required to ban a user.

Any user given an involuntary permanent ban enacted before this RFC is passed may request a one-time vote to ratify that ban. They must be able to find a current user who will serve as their advocate and run the RFC. If that vote fails to reach the ban threshold, the previously-banned user will be re-admitted to this community as a member in good standing.

1 Like
About Moderation
RFC: Permanently Ban Churchill
#2

Hard disagree. Best case scenario is that those previously permabanned can come back if they reach teh threshold in favor of being allowed back that passes in this poll. But even that is dumb. THey were banned for a reason. Just stop with this shit already.

#3

So disciplinary action becomes a popularity contest? Pass.

2 Likes
#5

Not disciplinary action; permanently banning a member of the community.

1 Like
#6

Nonsense. This allows bad faith actors to repeatedly do the same shit.

No. Sure seems like this is a backhanded way to try to get sabo back, again. There’s no need to relitigate that drama.

I picked a lower threshold because I think enough people are willing to consider the severity of their action.

#8

Surely you can’t be confused how something might be different in intensity and frequency? I haven’t seen anyone get permabanned lightly here. Can you provide an example of one you objected to and why?

#9

If we really must do this, then I propose the following additional exceptions:

  1. Encouraging another user to kill themselves via pm;
  2. Attempting a coup via pm to destroy the forum while creating a new forum;
  3. Abusing admin privileges to out personal information;
  4. Abusing moderator privileges to out personal information.

Edit: Also the wager one is stupid.

#12

Well, that’s seems really dumb to me. You are familiar with why people like jmakin and sabo were banned right?

#13

I mean, there’s been some speculation that this account is Sabo, so I’m going to go with yes.

#16

I’m fine with people disagreeing with me. You are familiar with why sabo and jmakin were banned though right?

1 Like
#17

jmakin was banned at his own request

image

His gimmick was banned for a PM he posted on another forum

#19

Please, you’re trying with a straight face to argue that he is not currently permabanned/BOS? His gimmick was just banned, but his main account is welcome back at any time?

#20

What do you think jmakin was banned for?

#21

I’m sorry, but still:

But to answer your question, he was banned for his part in the council of captains saga, and more recently because he threatened Victoar.

#22

Oh shit I thought I was making a new post but edited the one I’d already made and there doesn’t seem to be any way to revert

#23

Ok? How is that at all relevant though? He is currently permabanned/BOS, or do you disagree? Which is hte point that CN was making.

#24

So here is the biggest problem with sabo, I mean @ctyri’s idea.

Those kind of rules would allow me to do all sorts of wild shit. I could roll with 5 sock puppets and troll the shit out of everyone, try to take over as mod, and call everyone a c*** every time my ban expired.

So the solution to that is to write better rules I suppose, but it’s not particularly hard to be a heinous piece of shit while staying within any set of rules. Trust me on that one. Eventually you have to give some leeway to say ‘fuck this person, go away’

#25

Stealing an election with space lasers should be added.

#26

CN asked “You are familiar with why sabo and jmakin were banned though right?” I am not sure whether CN thinks they were banned because of the PM thread stuff (which neither were), or because of the actual reasons.

#28

its always been this way. see Sabo.