The distinction was not that it wasn’t specifically called out by your language, but that it was outside of your “if a poster is banned” exclusion, but still clearly an effort to stir shit, even when it’s funny.
I can live with that language, but what’s really important is using em-dashes.
How would you propose re-wording it?
Maybe we don’t need to if we only want to keep it governing use of a gimmick while a main is banned.
Please vote to approve (or not) the wording for the following proposed rule:
Do you approve of the wording for this proposed rule?
- Yes
- No
0 voters
Poll closes 8/19/2021. If a majority votes in favor of the wording, the proposed rule will be put to a forum-wide vote.
Why can’t they vote?
Yeah, I don’t care much about gimmick accounts and hadn’t paid much attention, but you get a temp ban and you can’t vote? Seems Floridian. You can’t vote twice obviously, but not once?
Have they tried not getting banned?
1 Like
Very Floridian of you.
Your bans have been overturned. If mods didn’t ban people over literally nothing this community might have more confidence in their actions and you might not have got the boot.
As it stands this RFC allows a malignant mod to find (or invent) an excuse to ban people to prevent them from voting. As I’m sure you’re aware.
But wouldn’t the community just overturn the unjust ban of a malignant mod?
After the voting has closed, probably. Fait accompli.
And anyway, why tolerate such bad moderation?
2 Likes
As a member of the Irredeemably Witty Committee, I feel this is overly restrictive. It should be understood that people make jokes, engage in play etc. This rule could be fine if it were possible to objectively determine when a post is made with genuine malice (or in cases where it’s reasonably, but not necessarily predictably, genuinely hurtful/embarrassing to the poster in question), but that’s historically been a real minefield.
More broadly, meb, you are building a ruleset where fun is at best dubious and, for the most part, outright forbidden. Or more properly, a ruleset where fun may only be directed outwards (the befanged Republicans, the Clouseauesque Democrats). That’s not how heterogenous groups of people work, and there’s no way to make it so.
Jokes are usually between friends, I don’t think people call jman “jailman” or the user FKA Goebs80 “Goebbels80” because they’re having fun with a pal.
2 Likes
Oh definitely not with a pal, no. Or at least not with that specific poster. But they are having fun, and doing so in an entirely normal way that we don’t generally find necessary to create rules prohibiting in real life.
Now, it’s true that we use norms, social cues etc to curb that kind of behaviour IRL, to keep it within acceptable boundaries - but those boundaries are considerably more lax than “Never do this”. Social cues notoriously don’t really register online, true. But the thing about these rules is that, almost universally (including moderators), people abide by them in cases where they agree with them and disregard them in cases where they don’t.
So creating and enforcing these rules doesn’t actually address the problem, it just creates a new problem where people are annoyed they got temp-banned for being too funny. Or that someone else didn’t get temp-banned despite being irresponsibly amusing.
He changed it?
Ban. One.
The part of my post you are quoting from was the old rules we setup over 10 years ago for the SE forum on 2+2.
ETA: I really question the goal behind the post you just made. It’s pretty offensive to accuse me of something, when no one reading the context of the post you’re replying to would logically view it in the way you twisted it. Doing this while simultaneously cutting out all of the context of the post speaks to you making this post from a malicious standpoint and with the only intention of trying to use me to grandstand in an attempt to stir up more bullshit.
3 Likes
I thought the 6ix ban for referring to a poster by the name his handle was taken from was reversed?
Nope.