elmon
Veteran Member
Asst. Server Liaison
fionn sucks
Posts: 1,476
| Likes: 1,842
|
Post by elmon on Jun 28, 2020 16:10:59 GMT
Object for reasons above. I don't see there being an exact point on what constitutes a "valid" reason. This server also doesn't need more titles with the bloated hierarchy that's already in place. We already have the "Permban Manager" title. What I'm suggesting is essentially for "When vouching, please state why you are vouching. If you just put "vouch" your vote will not be counted. This is to combat quick scanning and vouching without putting though into it." to be properly enforced. Currently people just comment vouch, and likely without actually looking at the evidence. Again, words being put in my mouth, I never said "valid" reason, I said something that adds value, which is what a reason would do.
|
|
grntbg
Full Member
Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit.
Posts: 295
|
Post by grntbg on Jun 28, 2020 17:06:08 GMT
Object for reasons above. I don't see there being an exact point on what constitutes a "valid" reason. This server also doesn't need more titles with the bloated hierarchy that's already in place. We already have the "Permban Manager" title. What I'm suggesting is essentially for "When vouching, please state why you are vouching. If you just put "vouch" your vote will not be counted. This is to combat quick scanning and vouching without putting though into it." to be properly enforced. Currently people just comment vouch, and likely without actually looking at the evidence. Again, words being put in my mouth, I never said "valid" reason, I said something that adds value, which is what a reason would do. And I believe that such a title is not necessary for permanent bans to be handled efficiently. Definitely not, i know off the top of my head 3+ invalid permban requests in the past couple of months that i commented on. If you really care about "powerposting" dont let comments raise your post count or be required to give a reasoning. Limiting who can vote is ALWAYS a bad thing. That's why I said if you have a valid reason to object you can? Provided you give your reasoning Nobody is putting words in your mouth. This is what you said verbatim. Don't be so accusatory.
|
|
elmon
Veteran Member
Asst. Server Liaison
fionn sucks
Posts: 1,476
| Likes: 1,842
|
Post by elmon on Jun 28, 2020 17:23:03 GMT
We already have the "Permban Manager" title. What I'm suggesting is essentially for "When vouching, please state why you are vouching. If you just put "vouch" your vote will not be counted. This is to combat quick scanning and vouching without putting though into it." to be properly enforced. Currently people just comment vouch, and likely without actually looking at the evidence. Again, words being put in my mouth, I never said "valid" reason, I said something that adds value, which is what a reason would do. And I believe that such a title is not necessary for permanent bans to be handled efficiently. That's why I said if you have a valid reason to object you can? Provided you give your reasoning Nobody is putting words in your mouth. This is what you said verbatim. Don't be so accusatory. You're right, I misworded my argument earlier but my point I think I've made clear, if you have a reason to provide, then you can respond. You've ignored my whole arguement to point out one discrepancy. No where in the original post does it say valid reason, my suggestion says "something of value", if you give a reason, that would add value. Again, you everyone just responding with 'vouch' while most of them aren't even looking at the evidence is a flaw in the system and I doubt they affect the outcome all the much. If a permban request is valid, they will be added and vice versa. I'm saying if you vote, you should have to explain your reasoning or give something of value to the request, and not just comment 'vouch'. Regarding the permban manager title, that is a matter of fact thing, if you don't think it should be then a suggestion can be made to change that but as it stands, it exists and therefore I can base arguements on its existence.
|
|
grntbg
Full Member
Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit.
Posts: 295
|
Post by grntbg on Jun 28, 2020 17:25:14 GMT
And I believe that such a title is not necessary for permanent bans to be handled efficiently. Nobody is putting words in your mouth. This is what you said verbatim. Don't be so accusatory. Regarding the permban manager title, that is a matter of fact thing, if you don't think it should be then a suggestion can be made to change that but as it stands, it exists and therefore I can base arguements on its existence. It exists, therefore you can make a suggestion based on its existence, therefore I can object to that suggestion because in my opinion the title shouldn't be expanded and ultimately should not exist. This isn't a flaw in the system. Rather, you're making an assumption about how players vote (with nothing to back that up) whereas the system exists to give everyone a vote, and to not limit the importance of that vote if the reason is deemed insubstantial.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jun 28, 2020 19:40:10 GMT
Miwo, zeseryu, and Inpace have pretty much said it all for me. Wild does have a point but I think that voting has become ingrained in our procedures and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, I just think that when judging executionary cases such as permban requests or applications there should be some sort of justification requirement for votes, otherwise we should just add polls to them and I don't think that's the best idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2020 15:29:12 GMT
Majority declines.
|
|