Lol worst poster on 2p2, let’s not get carried away
1 Like
When you take into account volume though?
MM?
3 Likes
Is this the first ban longer than two weeks? I don’t love the RM ban here, but I just think it’s ridiculous to ban someone 20+ times and make dozens of threads and thousands of posts over how to handle them. It’s genuinely the strangest thing I’ve ever seen online and I think I was 13 when I fell for tubgirl.
That’s awesome, we can have a great discussion on what to do about Churchill in about moderation.
The question for this RFC is should there be any limitations on the length of ban a moderator can issue? If yes, what should that limit be?
If we don’t settle these questions, then as I’ve already stated I’m gonna issue some 10 year bans the instant I am voted in as a mod.
1 Like
We saw with the poll most people are against permanent bans.
You’ll perma someone, then someone will start a poll and will be overturned.
That will be dumb.
Should probably just make a rule then shouldn’t we?
That’s some awful bait, and I won’t take it.
All of that misses the point entirely of why Churchill’s case illustrates a massive leak in your rule. I get that you don’t want to talk about it as you seem to think that making hastily formed rules will lead us to a great utopia, but it simply doesn’t work that way.
The past year since your big push for RFCs and moderation rotation has been an utter failure at accomplishing any of the things you set out to do. I don’t think that it says something bad about you, the limitations you faced weren’t your limitations. They were a lack of consensus and a small but loud contingent of bad faith actors. Regardless, doing the same hastily created rule process thing again isn’t going to fix anything either.
At a fundamental level, people have to decide to be here together with reasonable harmony or be told to leave. Putting up roadblocks or trying to formalize rules is something that will be weaponized by bad faith actors to make everything worse… as the last year plus has exemplified nicely.
1 Like
Ha done.
1 Like
I guess I’m crazy. In my fucked up logic, if you want moderators to be able to permaban someone, we should ratify a rule that gives them that power. As it currently stands, if a mod permabans someone we get a giant argument about how that power or any process to actually permaban someone was never ratified. And we get wars over bans of problem posters.
If you don’t believe mods should be able to permaban someone, you agree that there should be some limit to how long of a ban a mod can issue. Otherwise we can effectively permaban a poster with extreme ban lengths. So we should codify what that maximum length is.
I literally do not care which direction we go on this. I just want one or the other.
Any other discussion is just people who enjoy arguing over bullshit way too much.
4 Likes
The funny thing is I’m probably one of the few people putting forth an honest effort to improve this place and come up with solutions to problems, but we can never seem to do that without it devolving into the same stupid arguments.
11 Likes
I just typed up a pretty long analysis of how to have a low/no mod system and move on and then i just said damn. I’m dumb af. Why do i care at all. Deleted and will enjoy the rest of my night.
Meb is doing a good job posting in good faith here if it matters at all.
7 Likes
Given the choice between Perma 7 days and 14 days I voted Perma. But really I think max ban length should be something like weeks x number of bans, even if it means starting the count fresh.
If we take a common law approach to this, it seems pretty clear that mods can permaban users, because that is a customary power of mods, and it has even happened on this site. It can also be reversed. I’m not planning on permabanning any members if I become mod, but I think in the absence of a prohibition on the practice, it should be considered one of the tools of moderation, and members should take that into account when selecting moderators.
We clearly need rules and I appreciate your effort, but we have two big camps stopping that - those that just want to ignore the fighting (makes sense) and those that are primarily here for the fights/to settle old scores. If we had rules and less RFCs (and AM trainwrecks) the forum wouldn’t be as fun. People treat this as a game to bait people, so they can get them banned, and chalk up another victory. People are great at using slight little jabs, and then never dropping an argument, but then as soon as some line is crossed, immediately demanding bans.
5 Likes
Fourth option-
Wookie and CN are not allowed to interact with Churchill and vice versa &
Goofy and Jal are not allowed to interact with each other.
I think that would take care of most of the drama. (I’m not implying all parties have equal culpability.)
1 Like
Both your post and the meb post are correct.
From my perspective only, I think the rotating mods has been a great improvement.
2 Likes
Do you think that’s what is happening with Churchill? Because if so there’s a major disconnect. You can look at Churchill’s posts in the covid thread. He isn’t baited by anyone. He’s the one doing the baiting. There’s no other plausible explanation for his behavior.
1 Like