Upon observing the comments and threads in About Unstuck over the past several days, one thing I have noticed from all sides of any debate is the repeated calls for banning of obvious gimmick accounts being made by posters who were either temp-banned by the mods, or elected for a self-ban.
New Language (post 185)
Proposed Rule: If a poster is banned via moderator action–either temporarily or permanently–any non-passive behavior made on another account will result in that account being permanently suspended. Non-passive behavior is defined as posting, voting in polls, and other actions determined to be hostile at the discretion of the moderators.
Old versions:
Proposed rule: If a poster is banned for any reason, temporary, permanent, or via self-ban request, any account made by that poster in order to circumvent the ban in will be immediately be removed.
Proposed rule: If a poster is banned via moderator action, either temporarily or permanently, any account made by that poster in order to circumvent the ban in order to post will be removed.
Posters who have requested a self-ban can use a second account to read posts and PMs, but if they post publicly on the second account, that account will be silenced until their main account’s self-ban expires.
*removed this section as no one seems to care about self-bans.
This is a discussion thread. Please use this thread to argue for or against this rule, or propose any tweaks/changes to the language. It will remain open for three days until after the votes on new mods are finished. I’ve put the exact date and time of posting in the thread title. Upon closure of this thread, a poll will be posted containing the final language of the rule.
I will not be posting a poll in this thread as that tactic seems to confuse the situation more than necessary.
This thread will close at 1520 PST on Saturday, July 17.