| |
|
Cal's in town and he's agreed to do a couple of jobs for us, and I asked him to attack the issue of banning to start off with. He *may* be prepared to do some other stuff around the place, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Moderators will now see an edit user link next to people's posts. They can go into that and propose a ban if they want. They'll need another eight moderators or admins to agree, but two negative votes will stop the process dead in its track. In emergencies, Admins now have the power to ban or unban people on a whim, but if I find out people have done this without bloody good reason, I'll throw an enormous wobbly and shout at everyone before getting rid of the power completely.
I expect people to go through decent processes around this stuff. If someone starts a banning motion and you as a moderator do not think it has got enough exposure, then it's your responsibility to veto it and start a thread about it. Could I ask moderators to NOT VETO moves to ban that REFLECT THE GENERAL WILL OF THE BOARD, except—of course—on major points of principle that you're prepared to defend. |
|
|
