Vote concerning Gblocked, permablocked, or permabanned users on RFRs

0

Obi the LEGO Fan·5/7/2015

ZXSpidermanXZ wrote:

Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:

ZXSpidermanXZ wrote:

Madkatmaximus wrote: Basically my question is, why should they be revoked? If they supplied and honest, unbiased vote what reason is there to cross it out simply because they've been permanently banned/globally blocked?

People with permanent bans have been proven to be immoral IMO, therefore their votes should be disqualified. It would only be for current votes. But I do believe it's necessary. If someone is Gblocked without a good reason, then this wiki allows them to come back, and they can still vote.

People change. Sometimes they are constructive members of the community until they reach a breaking point and decide to become chronic trolls. I see no reason why their past votes should be removed because their attitude changed and they decided to do stupid things and get blocked.

This vote is to disqualify all of their vots on current votes, not votes that already ended. Votes don't usually last more than 5 days.

Why do we need a whole rule for this? That barely ever happens. If something's not broken, don't fix it. :P

(Edited by Obi the LEGO Fan)

0

ZXSpidermanXZ·5/7/2015

Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:

ZXSpidermanXZ wrote:

Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:

ZXSpidermanXZ wrote:

Madkatmaximus wrote: Basically my question is, why should they be revoked? If they supplied and honest, unbiased vote what reason is there to cross it out simply because they've been permanently banned/globally blocked?

People with permanent bans have been proven to be immoral IMO, therefore their votes should be disqualified. It would only be for current votes. But I do believe it's necessary. If someone is Gblocked without a good reason, then this wiki allows them to come back, and they can still vote.

People change. Sometimes they are constructive members of the community until they reach a breaking point and decide to become chronic trolls. I see no reason why their past votes should be removed because their attitude changed and they decided to do stupid things and get blocked.

This vote is to disqualify all of their vots on current votes, not votes that already ended. Votes don't usually last more than 5 days.

Why do we need a whole rule for this? That barely ever happens. If something's not broken, don't fix it. :P

/Rarely/ happens. That doesn't mean it never happens. Why not have clear rules on this? It takes an admin about 2 minutes to implement it, and members simply have to type a letter to vote. :P

(Edited by ZXSpidermanXZ)

0

Obi the LEGO Fan·5/7/2015

ZXSpidermanXZ wrote:

Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:

ZXSpidermanXZ wrote:

Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:

ZXSpidermanXZ wrote:

Madkatmaximus wrote: Basically my question is, why should they be revoked? If they supplied and honest, unbiased vote what reason is there to cross it out simply because they've been permanently banned/globally blocked?

People with permanent bans have been proven to be immoral IMO, therefore their votes should be disqualified. It would only be for current votes. But I do believe it's necessary. If someone is Gblocked without a good reason, then this wiki allows them to come back, and they can still vote.

People change. Sometimes they are constructive members of the community until they reach a breaking point and decide to become chronic trolls. I see no reason why their past votes should be removed because their attitude changed and they decided to do stupid things and get blocked.

This vote is to disqualify all of their vots on current votes, not votes that already ended. Votes don't usually last more than 5 days.

Why do we need a whole rule for this? That barely ever happens. If something's not broken, don't fix it. :P

/Rarely/ happens. That doesn't mean it never happens. Why not have clear rules on this? It takes an admin about 2 minutes to implement it, and members simply have to type a letter to vote. :P

Because I think that on some occasions there may be nothing wrong with the vote of a perma-blocked user whatsoever, and since it happens so rarely making a rule is unnecessary. I can't even think of any examples.

(Edited by Obi the LEGO Fan)

0

ZXSpidermanXZ·5/7/2015

Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:

ZXSpidermanXZ wrote:

Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:

ZXSpidermanXZ wrote:

Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:

ZXSpidermanXZ wrote:

Madkatmaximus wrote: Basically my question is, why should they be revoked? If they supplied and honest, unbiased vote what reason is there to cross it out simply because they've been permanently banned/globally blocked?

People with permanent bans have been proven to be immoral IMO, therefore their votes should be disqualified. It would only be for current votes. But I do believe it's necessary. If someone is Gblocked without a good reason, then this wiki allows them to come back, and they can still vote.

People change. Sometimes they are constructive members of the community until they reach a breaking point and decide to become chronic trolls. I see no reason why their past votes should be removed because their attitude changed and they decided to do stupid things and get blocked.

This vote is to disqualify all of their vots on current votes, not votes that already ended. Votes don't usually last more than 5 days.

Why do we need a whole rule for this? That barely ever happens. If something's not broken, don't fix it. :P

/Rarely/ happens. That doesn't mean it never happens. Why not have clear rules on this? It takes an admin about 2 minutes to implement it, and members simply have to type a letter to vote. :P

Because I think that on some occasions there may be nothing wrong with the vote of a perma-blocked user whatsoever, and since it happens so rarely making a rule is unnecessary. I can't even think of any examples.

I could mention a recent instance but I'm sure it would cause unneeded drama. Regardless I do still believe this is necessary.

(Edited by ZXSpidermanXZ)

0

CJC95·5/7/2015

ZXSpidermanXZ wrote:

Madkatmaximus wrote: Basically my question is, why should they be revoked? If they supplied and honest, unbiased vote what reason is there to cross it out simply because they've been permanently banned/globally blocked?

People with permanent bans have been proven to be immoral IMO, therefore their votes should be disqualified. It would only be for current votes. But I do believe it's necessary. If someone is Gblocked without a good reason, then this wiki allows them to come back, and they can still vote.

Interesting use of the term immoral...

(Edited by CJC95)

0

ZXSpidermanXZ·5/7/2015

CJC95 wrote:

ZXSpidermanXZ wrote:

Madkatmaximus wrote: Basically my question is, why should they be revoked? If they supplied and honest, unbiased vote what reason is there to cross it out simply because they've been permanently banned/globally blocked?

People with permanent bans have been proven to be immoral IMO, therefore their votes should be disqualified. It would only be for current votes. But I do believe it's necessary. If someone is Gblocked without a good reason, then this wiki allows them to come back, and they can still vote.

Interesting use of the term immoral...

Not really. Someone who did enough to get permanently blocked on this wiki has had to do a lot of really bad things. Vandalism, cursing, inappropriate language and links. We don't permaban anyone here without a very good reason.

(Edited by ZXSpidermanXZ)

0

652Graystripe·5/8/2015

A case-by-case basis would be an excellent case here, involving community consensus (through whatever means) depending on the offense that led to a block.

(Edited by 652Graystripe)

0

I'mDivergent·5/8/2015

Legofrodo12 wrote: Hmmm... Well, if they did something bad enough to get blocked or banned for a length of time, then yes, I think that having their votes revoked is a reasonable consequence of their actions.

A.

And getting a ban/block isn't a consequence in itself?

(Edited by I'mDivergent)

0

Marcel77799·5/8/2015

Definitely B.

(Edited by Marcel77799)

0

GuacamoleCCXR·5/8/2015

A.

(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)

Consensus