We voted to approve the wording that will be used for a formal vote by the community.
I think itās a mistake to advance this rule to a final vote. Itās written extremely poorly and leaves open a ton of loopholes in a way that it doesnāt 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.
Thereās an intentional moratorium on ten year bans.
:test:
Unfortunately, that isnāt in the wording.
1 Like
I donāt know whether this will pass, but if it did I would not enforce 10 year bans
1 Like
But I would, because there wouldnāt be a rule against them. And now we have a constitutional crisis!
I think the mod team would be able to come to a consensus
A ten year ban is a ridiculous number. Itās an obvious attempt to circumvent the letter of the law with what is intended to be a permanent ban in practice. Itās a talent better suited to writing Texas abortion laws.
Yeah, the ābenefitsā I see are allowing Inso0 and other right wing trolls to request their account back or to reregister without being able to be permanently banned again until we can pass yet another RFC detailing the permban process.
There are currently 2 users banned by mods, neither are permanent. All of the permanent suspensions are trolls, spambots, or alts to evade other bans. This RFC solves a problem that doesnāt exist.
2 Likes
I based my election as a mod explicitly on the fact that I would be issuing these bans and 74% of a much larger voting audience approved it. I am carrying through the will of the forum. Not doing so would be misuse of my position.
Anyway, they will happen on July 1st as promised.
What law are you referring to?
A ten year ban if this RFC passes.
Not against the rules of this forum. Thereās no maximum ban length set in any rule on this site, or within the wording of your RFC. I know this because I tried to create this rule myself and got shot down.
This is why Iām telling you your wording is bad and itās a mistake to move forward with it as is.
As otatop pointed out, the only thing your RFC currently does is allow inso to come back if he wants.
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 donāt 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.