Then vote it down offer an alternative. Or vote it in and offer an amendment for RFC.
I am also quite fine with inso coming back and don’t think he should have been banned, at least not in the way that he was.
Me becoming a mod and banning multiple posters for ten years was the alternative I offered. I got 74% of the vote for my alternative, so here we are.
I suggest reading through this thread for context.
I posted in that thread.
It seems that the discord/nft site is having fun trolling UP. And they now have how many mods? is it 2 or 3?
1 Like
So you’re aware of exactly how this came up? It was then approved by the community.
Nothing is more hilarious than watching edgelord NBZ who advocates (for someone else) violently murdering his political opponents get flustered when someone angleshoots his interpretation of a non-existent forum rule.
2 Likes
This is not happening at all. I have explicitly stated every step of the way what I would do. The community approved it. I will follow through on my promises. It’s what we all wish the Democrats would do.
If the community decides they want to create rules regarding a maximum length of ban a moderator may issue, and rules about how/when a permanent ban may be issued, I am in favor of all of that.
This RFC does not accomplish any of those things though.
You sure enjoyed helping to get Sven elected even though 90 percent of UP had no idea who he was. Good laughs all around. But anyway I voted for you solely due to your promise (on the other site because you refused to name names here) to ban CN, so please do proceed with haste.
Bans will be issued on July 1st. I don’t even have mod access yet.
The only help I provided Sven was nominating him per his request. I have honored every request anyone has ever made to be nominated as a mod since the mod nomination RFC passed. If people believed it was an issue, they had an opportunity to vote against it.
It’s just that the belly laughs over at the other site at the expense of UP about Sven’s election seems a little out of place for somebody so stridently trying to bring the UP community together. As is your “constitutional crisis” threat directed at somebody who is just trying to bring his RFC forward per the rules.
remember if you’re laughing at someone behind their back to always make public mention of it so you know it really got ‘em
1 Like
Since you were never in the discord, you should probably check better with your sources. You have consistently been given a mischaracterized version of what discussion actually takes place there.
As for this RFC, I am just trying to help. This is an area that I wanted to have rules put in place. However I don’t believe in passing a poorly worded RFC that doesn’t accomplish any of what that poster claims to want. Me pointing that out helps identify the issue on the front end, rather than fighting about it later when people realize that this accomplished nothing.
You were not laughing with Sven about how he got elected mod when 90 percent of UP had no idea who he was?
Oh I absolutely found that hilarious. Is there anything wrong with finding that funny? Part of the issue here is way too many people taking themselves too seriously here rather than just having fun. Although I’d guess its less than 90% who don’t know who he is.
90 percent was your guess not mine.
It is very funny, I agree. It also is kind of trolling UP from another site. I’ve heard that behavior like that is disgusting. Especially if it was planned.
Was it a guess or something posted as a joke?
The overall point is you extrapolate that into some sort of devious plan, rather than just a person laughing at something funny happening.
And you held onto someone feeding you a one liner for almost two months as though it was some sort of gotcha.
All of that says more about you than it does about me.
1 Like
That is just too deliciously ironic.
Ok Alanis
1 Like
The rules proposed in this thread seem unlikely to meet the threshold required for enactment. Voting will remain open for several more days, but I suggest that we resume discussion of these issues to see if we can form a consensus around an alternate set of rules.
It seems to me that the main topic of discussion is what guidelines the community wants to adopt for imposing permanent bans (or other long bans) on users. Through the RFC process, the forum could impose or reverse any ban with support of a 60% majority. There is an asymmetry here, however, because moderators can currently issue or reverse bans unilaterally. Mod decisions that are backed by anything more than 40% of the forum cannot be reversed through the RFC process, even though the same decisions would require support from 60% of the forum to be enacted through the same process.
Even though mods need a two-thirds majority to be appointed, users vote for mods for various reasons. As a result, the community’s support for any particular policy of a given mod may be well under two-thirds or even under 60%. This conclusion seems even stronger when you consider that mods often need to make decisions in circumstances that were not foreseen by community members at the time of their election.
I have some ideas for making the standards for bans more balanced, whether they are issued by an RFC or by the mods. If there is broader interest in discussing this, I suggest we take the conversation for a new thread because the title of the current thread (“Unban everyone”) doesn’t really capture the main idea as I see it.
5 Likes
There are also several existing RFC threads that could be returned to, like:
https://unstuckpolitics.com/t/rfc-let-s-discuss-mod-guidelines
https://unstuckpolitics.com/t/rfc-everyone-should-ignore-the-people-who-annoy-them-and-read-and-heart-my-awesome-and-hysterical-posts-instead
1 Like