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?
Is the first time an outlier or the start of a pattern? If someone is a bad actor, they’re not going to stop at one time and they can be punished more harshly.
If you retitled them to “sections” or something instead of rules or combined it all into one paragraph I think it makes more sense, like
Bans
Mods are allowed to ban anyone at their discretion for any amount of time including permanently. If a ban exceeds 14 days then it‘s the banning mods responsibility to open a thread in About Unstuck with a one week poll 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. Any ban exceeding 14 days in length in place since the start of this RFC (June 18th) shall also require a poll to remain in place.
1 Like
My suggested word said “since” instead of “before”
Fixed.
My proposal would be:
- Mods can ban anyone for up to a month at their discretion.
- If more than a month, an RFC is needed to sustain. Let’s say 2/3 majority. That should be enough that you’d need even some people like me who try to stay out of the forum wars to vote to uphold the ban.
- Bans can be no longer than six months. This is the absolute minimum time required for personal growth and reflection imo. If someone wants to return every six months and get banned again, I don’t see how that’s such a horrible thing to deal with - at least when compared to this shit and losing posters like goreo.
I also would be open to confining problem users to a subforum where they can post to their heart’s content, and most of us can ignore them, if that’s possible.
What’s the purpose of bans this long that cannot be achieved with a shorter ban? If some behavior is bad enough to deserve a month long ban it probably should be a permaban anyway. And yes, there absolutely should be permabans. There should be a possibility to come back at some point but that should not be a guarantee and should be decided on an individual basis.
@suzzer99 you haven’t been following this closely so I’m guessing you don’t know the answer to this that has been posted recently, and I want to see what your feeling is on it as sort of a barometer for how aware you are of the problem, and how that should inform your view on it.
How many times do you think churchill has been temp-banned by how many different mods?