Sabo was improperly permabanned. This should be reversed

[anon10396289]

@PocketChads

And any future poll about Sabo in a future attempt to ban him would be tainted by Wookie’s action, and therefore should not be valid.

Lethal Weapon 2 - Diplomatic Immunity

[anon10396289]

But jokes aside I agree with you that it seems like the ban should be reversed, although I think it would be valid to have another poll. @moderators what do you think?

[Tilted]

I don’t know who Sabo is and I don’t give a shit.

[otatop]

@PocketChads

There already was an RFC for Permabans. The community decided on a voting threshold for permabans. Sabo didn’t reach this threshold

@PocketChads

@anon10396289

And I also assume you didn’t include a poll because you think that it shouldn’t take a poll to reverse the ban

Correct. There was a voting threshold established, which a poster had to exceed in a poll, to be permabanned. It would be silly to have a poll over whether a simple, clear cut rule was broken by Wookie when he permabanned Sabo. The poll would be tainted by people voting their irrelevant opinions. And any future poll about Sabo in a future attempt to ban him would be tainted by Wookie’s action, and therefore should not be valid.

I wasn’t able to find a thread regarding a voting threshold on permbans, can you link to it?

I’ll create a new poll on unbanning Sabo depending on the previously agreed upon permban rules.

[clovis8]

I’m really avoiding these treads now but I can’t not comment here. Sabo is the single worst poster I have seen in 25 years online. He was removed by a valid and legal vote. He absolutely should not be back. His sole goal in posting is destroying discussion. He is the only poster I have ever seen with zero good faith.

[otatop]

@PocketChads

@otatop

I’ll create a new poll on unbanning Sabo

Why

I don’t think moderators should be able to unilaterally undo a decision made by the community regardless of their personal feelings. For example I voted on the original thread about permbanning people by request that people should be banned if they ask for it but the community voted for a 2 week cooldown first so I’ve followed that.

[otatop]

@anon46587892

On June 26 chads decides to convert Sabo’s ban to a temp, which should have rendered Keed’s poll to have Sabo unbanned moot.

On July 6. Sabo is re-permabanned by someone other than chads as a result of votes in the poll to reverse the perma-ban that chads had already reversed.

Hmmm, what could have happened between those dates that may have changed people’s minds…

[otatop]

What threshold? The only polls with thresholds by rule are mod confirmations that need a 2/3s majority, every other poll is a plurality as far as I know.

[anon10387340]

Well then a new effort should have been initiated, since the poll should have been closed. And also the threshold hadn’t been met when Wookie re-instated the ban. It was a simple majority at that time.

[otatop]

@anon10387340

Well then a new effort should have been initiated, since the poll should have been closed. And also the threshold hadn’t been met when Wookie re-instated the ban. It was a simple majority at that time.

.

@otatop

What threshold? The only polls with thresholds by rule are mod confirmations that need a 2/3s majority, every other poll is a plurality as far as I know.

[otatop]

@anon46587892

You’re point is irrelevant because the poll was created to unban Sabo. It was never binding on chads. AFIAK chads decision to revoked the ban was not contingent on the results of the poll, so the matter was settled once chads revoked the ban. And then Sabo was banned anyway.

Fair enough, wookie used the poll as cover to permban Sabo. I’m not going to unban Sabo unilaterally as a tit-for-tat.

[anon10387340]

Do you have something else that was enacted which specifically enforces a simple majority for perma bans?

[otatop]

@PocketChads

The problem is considering it a tit-for-tat for you to reverse a unilateral mod decision that went against the rules of the community. And that you seem to be holding this to the same standard you’d need to enact a punishment, rather than reverse an improperly administered punishment when there are cut and dry rules it violated, not just an opinion.

There’s a poll regarding keeping Sabo permbanned where a majority of posters voted to keep the ban in place and you’re asking mods to ignore those results because of technicalities that involve knowing precise timelines of events from 6 months ago. I’m choosing to uphold the results of the existing poll.

@anon10387340

Do you have something else that was enacted which specifically enforces a simple majority for perma bans?

The section you highlighted is regarding RFCs on rules, I don’t think it applies to votes on other polls.

[CaffeineNeeded]

So sixty percent then?

Are we done?

[Marksman]

Lol people fighting to bring sabo back under the guise of propriety is funny.

Watery dune hair.

[anon10387340]

@otatop

The section you highlighted is regarding RFCs on rules, I don’t think it applies to votes on other polls

It’s for a proposal, defined as rules pertaining to standards of user conduct or forum moderation, including selection, and tenure and conduct of moderators. Do you have something you can reference that specifically addresses perma bans and a simple majority? Otherwise, it would seem obvious that this section is relevant. I mean what is the basis for a simple majority requirement for perma bans?

[CaffeineNeeded]

@anon10387340

Otherwise, it would seem obvious that this section is relevant.

1. It’s not
2. 60% threshold was hit
3. This is absurdly obnoxious

[anon10387340]

I know you’re a proud non-reader and all, but try to keep up. That’s already been addressed.

[econophile]

Could someone post a link to the RFC about permabans?

[Marksman]

That is a technicality at best. He had been banned, BY YOU.

The community seemed pretty sure he needed to be permabanned.

I think having flip flopping moderation creating technicalities that trump the will of the community is a bad path to go down. And this is very much a technicality.