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?
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.
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.
I thought the 6ix ban for referring to a poster by the name his handle was taken from was reversed?
Nope.
I mean, sure? Point stands imo. We just had a whole thing where someone got banned for that.
No the point doesn’t stand, and feel free to read the edited part I just added. This is nothing but pointless shit-stirring on your part and I really don’t appreciate it.
Oh, OK, wow. That escalated quickly. I’m not sure what you think I’m accusing you of. I’ve said I think the culture you appear to broadly favour makes it very hard to have fun. If that’s an accusation, I don’t know that it’s an unwarranted one? Can we talk about it, maybe?
If the only way you can think of to have fun or be witty is at someone else’s expense, you have a really shitty sense of humor and a dearth of wit.
And if it’s not actually about my own admittedly crippling limitations and deficiencies, but more about
That’s not how heterogenous groups of people work, and there’s no way to make it so.
?
What then?
Ok. I could’ve sworn there was at least one more that was overturned.
Says who? You? Sporting Events was arguably 22’s most successful forum and community, and they enforced a rule you’re trying to convince us is antithetical to community. So, quite frankly, I don’t believe you.
Ok, the rule was made on SE because there was a specific issue with people bastardizing names of other posters in a way meant to attack them, and that also was not appreciated by those posters. The rule worked well to help remove some of the personal attacks from the forum.
The post you quoted out of context specifically stated that I was sharing those rules as a point of reference of what worked for us in SE for years, while that forum was the highest traffic and most popular forum on 2+2, with some of the most intelligent and interesting posters on that forum as well.
Yes.
Right, so you’re against such a rule here?