Churchill is a uniquely awful poster who has been pulling bannable nonsense for literally years, a perma is the only thing that makes sense, 6 weeks is a gift. At some point if you go years trolling people with highly personal bullshit you lose the right to post here.
5 Likes
Take Churchill out of it. The only thing I’m arguing is that it’s bad precedent in general. If that length was warranted, it’s better handled by a mod whose term extends beyond the next two weeks. Or by a community vote if it’s decided bans longer than X days deserve community vote.
I personally think there’s no point for any length between 7 days and permanent, but that’s just my opinion and others should weigh in.
1 Like
That‘s what Mat Sklansky‘s philosophy was on 2+2. He said that if someone is a bad enough poster to get banned for more than a week then they probably should be permabanned. I thought that made sense.
He just won a vote to not get perma’d so a long ban is pure angle-shooting of the community.
4 Likes
what did Churchill say to get banned for this long?
This is just effectively reducing mod term length then.
And the context is Churchill previously trolling Wookie and others about vaccinating their kids and about not testing when he was presumed positive and was isolated anyway. The context matters.
This really isn’t the thread to argue about Churchill. That can go in about moderation. This is for discussion of if there should be rules regarding length of bans and if there should be rules regarding how a longer/permanent ban can be enforced.
This is so stupid. The board is dying, we have like 5 guys who are habitual line steppers, they clearly need to be IP nuked, the end.
7 Likes
I’m actually more likely than not on your side in this regard. But while we’re doing it, let’s establish rules for how this is supposed to be done.
I’m in favor of bannings being decided in one poll rather than 3 threads/polls.
1 Like
Hard pass.
The last thing we need is to re-litigate mod decisions and invite more drama, which in reality is what posters like Churchill want.
1 Like
So then when I become a mod, I can ban you for 24 months because there’s no rule that says otherwise? See how it might benefit everyone to create some rules around this?
2 Likes
Actually, if we don’t put rules around this, I will run for mod every nomination period going forward with the explicit promise to ban everyone who annoys me on this site for 10 years.
2 Likes
I’m not worried. The idea that there’s rampant mod abuse here is laughable.
Creating strict rules with a maximum of 2 weeks for a ban does nothing but allow bad faith actors to work within and abuse. Creating poll requirements simply allows more drama, which is what the bad faith actors want.
You have to just trust the mods that are chosen.
I’m pretty sure I can get 2/3 support.
Then you will probably not be elected.
For being a mod? Sure.
Again, I’m not worried.
Ok, if that’s the case, then let’s instead codify that there is no maximum length on a ban issued by any mod on this site. That would solve that being an open issue as well.