Another question: If a user is willing to use tor maliciously (which is the only reason they'd need to be blocked) then what would blocking them actually do
I don't recall this working on nigma
Nightfall395 wrote:
Nightfall395 wrote:
Give me one reason to believe this isn't a troll vote, then. Give me one reason to believe blocking users solely for using TOR is a completely serious idea. Give me one reason to believe blocking users for doing pretty much nothing (it's pathetically easy to get somebody CUed, just go walk up to ale and make some stupid reason you want them CUed, he won't notice if you do it for every single new user) is anything but an excuse for blocking more people.
Nightfall395 wrote:
...but there's ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to get rid of them permanently because they're using tor. How hard is that to understand? How? Are you just trolling? Can we just get rid of every single other user permanently according to you?
Alemas2005 wrote: To be honest, a ban on users using TOR would be one of the simpler rules in the policy... Doesn't convolute anything at all, really.
Does that give us a reason to ban a user because they use TOR and asked if it was okay, like Yada? No.
Per this, so B. Also, Spidey, with every comment you say that they would only need a CU if they were already trolling you just repeat why this is completely pointless.
how comes all these things have to be voted on separately though, it's so much unnecessary red tape
^
okay i was sick of all the votes too but the original title was good enough to make a vote for it
how comes all these things have to be voted on separately though, it's so much unnecessary red tape
why did i even make this vote for you ale
how comes all these things have to be voted on separately though, it's so much unnecessary red tape
the original title was ""OH GOD I AM NOT GOOD WITH CREATING A SMALL AMOUNT OF VOTES PLEASE TO HELP" - Ale"
in other words you're not alone
So now we need to vote on how long a bcrat rfr has to be down after it fails to be put up again
A. 8 weeks
B. 12 weeks
C. 18 weeks
D. Can not be put back up after failing
A) 8 weeks: 1 vote.
B) 12 weeks: 15 votes.
C) 18 weeks: 10 votes.
D) Can't be put back up:
12 weeks.
If we don't use solid proof to determine if someone is a dupe and should be banned....then... what do we use?? A hunch? A slight suspicion? I can't see how this could be fair or feasible at all...
once again can you acknowledge the existence of cu for once
One of the rules on this wiki is LMBW:UCS and it's never used.
In almost all cases dupes would be outlawed by the policies and apparently forgetting about LMBW:UCS is a requirement for rights now so that policy barely exists (still makes sense to vote b tho)
people are saying no because they have brains
also you do realize checkuser exists right
let me tell you the story of a lone fort
one day, he voted C on a vote that had no C
one lad by the name of dama was running the vote, so he added C
fort changed his vote to D after that
dama decided to add a D option
fort then changed his vote to E, of course
dama, willing to play along, added E
then fort changed his vote to F
of course, dama still added F
after this, fort voted G
then, dama added G, and G was "I love Dama"
fort didn't change his vote again after that
now everybody knows his secret crush
a boy by the name of slice, thus, wanted to vote f, but needed to push the creator of the vote to add f
but f was the exact same as both e and not voting at all
nobody likes the f option
the end 
B. We already had a vote on "buck" a long long time ago, and thing is that "buck" doesn't sound nearly as much like the blocked word it's based on as "ritard" does. So if you could stop hesitating to quote the actual euphemisms just to make more people support, that would be nice.
Per this, so B.