I’m not sure who and how many “they” is, but it turns out that it was true!
So we’re good to unban everyone?
1 Like
Everyone but Inso0, Will (the first user to request a self ban who resorted to posting horse porn to get his way), and others who have requested self bans is currently unbanned and unsilenced.
It would be unfortunate if someone (not necessarily will) requested a self ban perma because they were unable to leave the forum for whatever reason, then found an email saying they’d been unbanned.
Is that a possibility?
No because I didn’t unban anyone, just checked the list of suspended accounts and noted the few that weren’t spambots, trolls, or gimmicks.
Proposal:
-
All permanently banned or silenced users shall have their original user name reinstated upon request. Or they may choose to come back under a new user name with no penalty. They will not be required to link their old and new identities.
-
Except for obvious spam accounts, no user shall be permanently banned until the forum passes rules governing permanent bans.
@spidercrab this thread has been open for more than three days. I request a poll for approval of the wording of this proposal in keeping with RFC procedure.
After an RFC thread has been open for at least 3 full days , any user can request a Forum Administrator to create a poll within the RFC thread to approve the wording for the proposal. Upon receipt of such request, a Forum Administrator shall use the Administrative Account to create a public poll stating the proposed wording of the rule with the choices of “Yes” or “No.” The poll shall remain open for a period of one week . If the poll receives support from a majority of voters , the proposal will proceed to a binding rule vote. Otherwise, debate on the proposal may continue and any user can again request a vote on wording within the RFC thread.
Just jumping in to point out that a similar request has been made in the “Permaban Sabo?” RFC, and that a poll should be opened by an admin in both of these threads.
[Sorry, lost track of this. ]
Please vote to approve (or not) the wording of the following proposed rule:
Proposed rule:
-
All permanently banned or silenced users shall have their original user name reinstated upon request. Or they may choose to come back under a new user name with no penalty. They will not be required to link their old and new identities.
-
Except for obvious spam accounts, no user shall be permanently banned until the forum passes rules governing permanent bans.
Do you approve of the wording for this proposed rule?
- Yes
- No
0 voters
Poll closes 6/24/2022. If a majority votes in favor of the wording, the proposed rule will be put to a forum-wide vote.
Voted no because those should be two separate rules.
1 Like
Same.
i’ll vote in favor of any unbanning of anyone at all
even klanksy
Gonna be unfortunate that your wording failed to address 10 year bans.
Is this actually happening? Can someone tldr this for me please?
I’m out of town with only my phone. Will post tomorrow when I’m back home at a computer.
We voted to approve the wording that will be used for a formal vote by the community.
I think it’s a mistake to advance this rule to a final vote. It’s written extremely poorly and leaves open a ton of loopholes in a way that it doesn’t positively impact the forum in any way.
The wording vote was put into a thread that was dead with no real discussion on the wording, and only 21 people voted on it.
I would suggest going back to the drawing board if your interest is actually improving the forum.
Passing an RFC that basically says, we need to create another RFC to figure out what we failed to do here is a pretty poor way of doing this.
1 Like
If you want to go back to the drawing board, then you can vote it down and start discussion anew. We are allowed to go through several iterations of redrafts and new votes. You had your chance to offer adjustments. Maybe the lack of drama in this thread is a point in favor of my proposal.
I believe this forum should have a community-approved process for permanently banning posters. The purpose of this RFC is to make it almost impossible to permaban anyone without first coming up with a process, creating pressure on the community to figure that process out.
You failed to account for the 10 year ban though. This is just one example of why your RFC as currently presented does nothing.
