I am in favor of mods, especially me if approved, issuing bans for any length they believe are in the best interest of the forum.
Who would you ban first sir?!
No. It cannot. Why do you, or anyone else, get to unilaterally decide what the max temp ban time is by deciding what we can vote on?
They’re going to be great bans. They’re going to improve the forum. And when they’re done, everyone will look back and be like wow, we’re so glad someone finally did this.
And don’t worry, they won’t be permanent. We’ll get this sorted out and they can maybe come back around 2032.
2 Likes
No one gets to unilaterally decide. The RFC process requires a vote on the wording of a proposal before it goes to a binding vote. You can do some politicking to vote down what you consider bad framing.
You are also free to offer up a poll of your own like this:
Maximum ban length without community approval
- One week or less
- More than one week but not permanent
- Permanent
0 voters
I’m just going to bring up this post from Dec 2020 and leave it here
6 Likes
Nothing, the people that want to argue with him can argue. The people that don’t can ignore him. What is the actual issue here?
2 Likes
shouldn‘t, yet here we are
1 Like
LMFAO what a joke. How is that banworthy at all?
4 Likes
Except I think he said he was still sending his kids to school. Context matters. Trolling is anything certain people don’t want to hear.
This is a pretty ridiculous statement. Seems to me most of posters here want this place to succeed even if they disagree with one another as to how that happens.
3 Likes
I would like to move on to vote on the proposed rules.
Shall the wording of the following rules be put up to a binding vote?
Rule 1: Mods are allowed to ban anyone at their discretion for any amount of time including permanently.
Rule 2: If a ban exceeds 14 days then it‘s the banning mods responsibility to open a thread in About Unstuck with a poll that with a simple yes/no question like „should (username)‘s ban until (date) be
reversed?“. If the banning mod hasn’t done it any other mod may do so.
If in that poll at least 50% vote yes then that ban has to be ended immediately.
Rule 3: Rule 2 replies retroactively to any ban since the start of this RFC (June 18th).
- Yes
- No
0 voters
So a maximum ban is 14 days, a user gets a 1 month ban, a poll gets opened, after three days the vote is no, the ban then ends at 3 days? Why wouldn’t it revert to 14? If the ban wasn’t even worth 14 days, the mod should be easy enough to remove.
Are you okay with proceeding as is to finally make some progress and then amending the rule?
I figured most polls stay open for a week so they will stay banned at least that long.
Do you want to add that into the rule that the poll will remain open for a week?
I’m not really concerned about any existing bans under this proposed rule, I’m just thinking about it structurally going forward. Seems like it creates that one weird trick to shorten any ban over 14 days down to the pool length, and it also therefore seems like it just caps the ban length at 14 days but kind of hides it under the surface of the vote.
Not sure my vote really matters, looks likely to advance thus far.
My counter-proposal was to cap discretionary bans at twice the previous ban (escalating bans).
1 Like
The whole point of this part of the RFC is to hammer out the precise language before a final vote.
Either is fine by me.
I think that’s reasonable to consider, I’ve proposed something similar in the past and this is similar enough to definitely get my vote. There’s gotta be some latitude on the first one though, right? Or does everyone get a chance to go deeply personal and shitty and only catch 24 hours?