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?
1 Like
- It’s not
- 60% threshold was hit
- This is absurdly obnoxious
I know you’re a proud non-reader and all, but try to keep up. That’s already been addressed.
Could someone post a link to the RFC about permabans?
2 Likes
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.
- He was voted off
- Sabo had his account deleted, by his request. This is more dishonest bullshit.
There was discussion that his posts should be deleted because he can potentially be doxxed but his account was note deleted.
Also, there was an effort to perma ban D. Sklansky. Which failed because it did not reach 60 percent. And that 60 percent was based on the section I quoted. There is precedent for application of that section as it pertains to perma bans.
The Sabo poll shouldn’t matter anyway, and even if it did, it had not reached a simple majority when PC reversed his own perma ban, and had not reached 60 percent (it was at 59 percent) when Wookie inappropriately re-enforced another mods perma ban against that mods wishes and against the rules of the community.
I don’t even think Wookie would have done it, except Goofy goaded him into it.
1 Like
Is the consensus that a few technicalities should be sufficient to compel a reversal or re-litigation in the criminal justice system? If yes, then why not do the same here?
There’s actually no rule about moderators permanently banning people as a moderator decision, only about people asking to be permanently banned.
That was an RFC, it needed to get to 60% to then create a second poll voting to ban or not ban Sklansky.
We have very few rules here, and most of the ones we have are extremely dumb.
- Who cares?
- Why are we stirring up shit that is 6 months old?
3 Likes
The RFC process was in place at the time of the Sabo incident. Why does Sklansky require an RFC, and Sabo not? That’s like the entire point - the poll wasn’t relevant anyway. But if people want to argue that it was, well then it didn’t reach the standard to perma anyway.
The criminal justice system also has limits on things like appeals, reasonable certainty of doubt, and most importantly people get paid to deal with that bullshit.
4 Likes
Did sabo actually reach out to someone and request to return? Or is this just pointless shit stirring?
A mod used their powers to ban Sabo because they thought it was the correct course of action. Mods didn’t have the same beliefs regarding Sklansky (one even mentioned they’d perm ban him but felt it wasn’t correct to do unilaterally). It’s a difference of moderation philosophy.
Again, the only polls with rules on their thresholds are RFCs (60%) and mod confirmation (66%). Everything else is simple plurality.
Maybe he should have thought about the potential consequences of plotting a coup and saved this information ahead of time.
The mod said then and now that he acted against the rules, and he reversed his decision. The other mod supposedly acted based on the results of the poll that should have been closed, without meeting the threshold required for a perma ban. Mods have no right to enforce a perma ban unilaterally.
As evidenced by the captain’s thread. Yes. 100% yes.
2 Likes
I don’t, but I think this conversation is pointless without an actual request from sabo to return. If so, I’d suggest sabo should bring it up through a current mod and there can be a community discussion with the proper knowledge that a request to return has been made.
A mod suggested that this thread should be started here today. I wasn’t sure if I had the energy to start and defend it, so I’m glad that you took the torch.