Questions for the FG about the organization of the election

[Rebel]

Here you can put your questions for the FG about the organization of the election.

WARNING - Be nice, don't use this thread to get personal or settle old scores.

Shoot....

[AndrewGrant]

Hi, I would like an explanation for why I was banned for a week earlier this month, for a comment that does not appear in any way to violate our sacred charter. I would never question the intentions of our leaders, so I may only assume that the ban was an accident, and not a highly targeted act with the foreknowledge of the blocking of rights to run for moderators for those banned. Such a thing would of course be against your own rules, as targeting the "Discord Invaders" ( A xenophobic turn of phrase I am afraid, but one popularized by our leaders ) is an act treated on par with nasty references to the relative age of users.

Please provide a reason for my ban here, as well as the text of the original post that was banned. I would love to reshare it here, to showcase the clear accidental ban to others, but since it was deleted, I cannot say for sure what it said verbatim.

Thanks.

[AndrewGrant]

Esteemed leaders of the forum,

I write today with deep conviction and a heartfelt plea: let us reconsider the ban on allowing previously excluded members to stand for moderator elections. In the spirit of redemption, let us explore the transformative power of second chances, drawing inspiration from timeless narratives of renewal and hope.

History and literature overflow with stories of redemption, none more poignant than that of Jesus Christ. His life and teachings underscore a universal truth: no one is beyond redemption. Even the most fallible individuals can be guided toward paths of righteousness and service. When Jesus forgave the adulterous woman or welcomed the repentant thief on the cross into paradise, he demonstrated an enduring belief in the capacity for change. His example challenges us to view others not solely through the lens of their past actions but with faith in their potential to grow and contribute.

Our forum thrives on the diversity of ideas and the collective wisdom of its people. By allowing previously banned members to run for moderator elections, we honor the belief that the community, through its vote, can discern the character and readiness of candidates. Those who were justly banned may well face scrutiny and accountability, but this process empowers voters to evaluate for themselves whether a candidate has truly changed or whether their exclusion was warranted.

Moreover, banning individuals from ever running sends a message that mistakes are indelible marks, rather than opportunities for transformation. Redemption and growth are not only possible—they are vital for a vibrant, evolving community. Allowing a path back for the repentant reinforces a culture of hope, where accountability exists alongside grace.

I trust in the wisdom of our community to elect only those who demonstrate genuine reform and dedication to the values of our forum. By opening this door, we show faith in our collective judgment, and we align our practices with the ideals of fairness, redemption, and the inherent worth of every individual.

Let us, therefore, write a new chapter for our forum—one that embodies hope, second chances, and the enduring power of human potential.

With deepest respect and hope,
Andrew (AGE) Ethereal

[towforce]

Esteemed leaders of the forum,

I write today with deep conviction and a heartfelt plea: let us reconsider the ban on allowing previously excluded members to stand for moderator elections. In the spirit of redemption, let us explore the transformative power of second chances, drawing inspiration from timeless narratives of renewal and hope.

History and literature overflow with stories of redemption, none more poignant than that of Jesus Christ. His life and teachings underscore a universal truth: no one is beyond redemption. Even the most fallible individuals can be guided toward paths of righteousness and service. When Jesus forgave the adulterous woman or welcomed the repentant thief on the cross into paradise, he demonstrated an enduring belief in the capacity for change. His example challenges us to view others not solely through the lens of their past actions but with faith in their potential to grow and contribute.

Our forum thrives on the diversity of ideas and the collective wisdom of its people. By allowing previously banned members to run for moderator elections, we honor the belief that the community, through its vote, can discern the character and readiness of candidates. Those who were justly banned may well face scrutiny and accountability, but this process empowers voters to evaluate for themselves whether a candidate has truly changed or whether their exclusion was warranted.

Moreover, banning individuals from ever running sends a message that mistakes are indelible marks, rather than opportunities for transformation. Redemption and growth are not only possible—they are vital for a vibrant, evolving community. Allowing a path back for the repentant reinforces a culture of hope, where accountability exists alongside grace.

I trust in the wisdom of our community to elect only those who demonstrate genuine reform and dedication to the values of our forum. By opening this door, we show faith in our collective judgment, and we align our practices with the ideals of fairness, redemption, and the inherent worth of every individual.

Let us, therefore, write a new chapter for our forum—one that embodies hope, second chances, and the enduring power of human potential.

With deepest respect and hope,
Andrew (AGE) Ethereal

This is not actually a question - but it's here because there are no other unlocked threads on which to discuss the election.

I myself am not allowed to stand for the moderator position due to having been an unknown person at the time the list was compiled (this is strange, given that I have moderated this forum before, that I have been around since the very beginning, and that many members have met me in person or otherwise know who I am - but I'm not here to dwell on that), but I would encourage others to do so: you don't need to do the judgement yourself any longer! You have a crystal clear charter. You can use a chatbot that allows you to build a template question (e.g. a Gemini "Gem"), and then you can just paste in the text of the post and allow the chatbot to make the decision for you. This could even be fun! Not a word normally associated with moderating a forum.

[Peter Berger]

In recent times there have been some moderation decisions that can certainly be considered surprising.
I will give but one example for what I mean.
There was the thread "Obsidian tweaks that may add value". In this thread Andreas Matthies posted a one-liner that "Old men never learn their lesson." For this he received a ban for seven days that was announced in public, although the OP actually took his remark in good spirits.
Such a ban I didn't consider too much of a big deal though certainly quite arbitrary if we compair with zillions way more unfriendly messages including several of FG members.
But now this obviously means that he couldn't run for moderator if he so chose. What is the rational behind this decision?
Also this consequence certainly comes as a surprise. Usually you should have the possibility to know about potential consequences of your posts in advance, shouldn't you?
In democratic environments it is a basic tradition that everyone who can vote also has the right to be elected. Why would you want to shorten the list of potential candidates?

[Viren]

I am also excluded from the voter list yet again. I dont appreciate chrisw endless bullying over my name not being realistic enough. There are children called "X Æ A-Xii", it is not up to the FG to decided whether someone's name fits their cultural standards. He should be ashamed of himself.

[hgm]

Hi, I would like an explanation for why I was banned for a week earlier this month, for a comment that does not appear in any way to violate our sacred charter. I would never question the intentions of our leaders, so I may only assume that the ban was an accident, and not a highly targeted act with the foreknowledge of the blocking of rights to run for moderators for those banned. Such a thing would of course be against your own rules, as targeting the "Discord Invaders" ( A xenophobic turn of phrase I am afraid, but one popularized by our leaders ) is an act treated on par with nasty references to the relative age of users.

Please provide a reason for my ban here, as well as the text of the original post that was banned. I would love to reshare it here, to showcase the clear accidental ban to others, but since it was deleted, I cannot say for sure what it said verbatim.

Thanks.

You can rest assured the ban was not an accident. You barged into a moderation issue, encouraging a banned member to reregister under a false name, two actions both explicitly forbidden by the charter. It was a conscious action on your part to sabotage moderation.

If you think that doesn't deserve a ban, you are not fit to be moderator in the first place.

[AndrewGrant]

Hi, I would like an explanation for why I was banned for a week earlier this month, for a comment that does not appear in any way to violate our sacred charter. I would never question the intentions of our leaders, so I may only assume that the ban was an accident, and not a highly targeted act with the foreknowledge of the blocking of rights to run for moderators for those banned. Such a thing would of course be against your own rules, as targeting the "Discord Invaders" ( A xenophobic turn of phrase I am afraid, but one popularized by our leaders ) is an act treated on par with nasty references to the relative age of users.

Please provide a reason for my ban here, as well as the text of the original post that was banned. I would love to reshare it here, to showcase the clear accidental ban to others, but since it was deleted, I cannot say for sure what it said verbatim.

Thanks.

You can rest assured the ban was not an accident. You barged into a moderation issue, encouraging a banned member to reregister under a false name, two actions both explicitly forbidden by the charter. It was a conscious action on your part to sabotage moderation.

If you think that doesn't deserve a ban, you are not fit to be moderator in the first place.

Lol. Sarcasm is illegal now. Damn.

[hgm]

I am also excluded from the voter list yet again. I dont appreciate chrisw endless bullying over my name not being realistic enough. There are children called "X Æ A-Xii", it is not up to the FG to decided whether someone's name fits their cultural standards. He should be ashamed of himself.

You would have a point if your name was really 'Peanut'. OTOH, if your only justification is that it could have been 'Peanut', as you appear to argue here, it would be a charter violation and an attempt to mock the charter, and thus encouraging others to do the same. Even if it were true, people would assume you are mocking the charter, with the same undesirable consequence.

I think the difference is important enough to require some proof before allowing you to create the impression that you are mocking the charter. You would not want to create that impression, right?

[AndrewGrant]

I am also excluded from the voter list yet again. I dont appreciate chrisw endless bullying over my name not being realistic enough. There are children called "X Æ A-Xii", it is not up to the FG to decided whether someone's name fits their cultural standards. He should be ashamed of himself.

You would have a point if your name was really 'Peanut'. OTOH, if your only justification is that it could have been 'Peanut', as you appear to argue here, it would be a charter violation and an attempt to mock the charter, and thus encouraging others to do the same. Even if it were true, people would assume you are mocking the charter, with the same undesirable consequence.

I think the difference is important enough to require some proof before allowing you to create the impression that you are mocking the charter. You would not want to create that impression, right?

Can we see your papers, sir?