3 Likes
I can tell.
Think about this position for a minute or two, and think about how arrogant it is. Do you really think that the people who disagree with you arenât trying or tried to improve this place? Like, could you say that with a straight face to CW, goofy, riverman or wookie?
Shit I disagree with you, but I wouldnât for a second ascribe bad motives to you like you do so many others here.
Because Churchill is the root cause of this discussion, and the inability of this forum to deal with an obviously bad faith actor like Churchill has caused repeated problems. Codifying these types of rules will simply making easier for bad faith actors to cause more.
1 Like
Actually, if Iâm potentially going to be a mod, screw it. No rules for me please!
2 Likes
Moderators shouldnât be allowed to issue unilateral permabans. They should be allowed to offer up candidates for permanent bans to be approved by the community.
Mods should be allowed to issue escalating temp bans of no more than twice the previous bans.
2 and 3 have shown not to be the case, and I think 1 shouldnât be applicable to a group of 35+ yr old adults.
What if we permit line-crossing when provoked by those slight little jabs?
Maybe we need a system similar to SE FACK where everything is in one place
Who cares man, just donât respond to him if it bothers you
1 Like
This is just like the âjust donât have sexâ method of preventing pregnancy. It makes sense if you donât consider the entirety of human history. Whatâs your plan when having the whole forum just ignoring Churchill fails?
I will ban him for 10 years. Maybe by 2032 weâll have this all sorted out.
1 Like
Oh and this reminds me. Framing 1 week or 2 week as the only options before permanent by forcing a poll and not considering other options isnât consistent with an honest attempt at rulemaking
I said isnât consistent with. It isnât. I specifically left an out for it to be done inadvertently.
Looks like it is still there though.
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?
Theyâre going to be great bans. Theyâre going to improve the forum. And when theyâre done, everyone will look back and be like wow, weâre so glad someone finally did this.
And donât worry, they wonât be permanent. Weâll 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
Iâm 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 donât can ignore him. What is the actual issue here?
2 Likes