RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
January 12, 2016 at 5:27 pm
(This post was last modified: January 12, 2016 at 5:33 pm by Alex K.)
Serious question though:
- is there a MO how a potential nukee can get warned concretely that he or she might become subject to the new procedure before an actual vote and decision needs to take place? With clear rule violations, it seems more obvious that one can issue a warning after an initial violation, and then one can ban on repeat violations. But with this more ineffable criterion, how would that work? There should be a clearly defined "nuke warning" imho.
- Are we talking permanent and/or temp bans here? Will be voted on both, or will the first time always be temp?
- is there a MO how a potential nukee can get warned concretely that he or she might become subject to the new procedure before an actual vote and decision needs to take place? With clear rule violations, it seems more obvious that one can issue a warning after an initial violation, and then one can ban on repeat violations. But with this more ineffable criterion, how would that work? There should be a clearly defined "nuke warning" imho.
- Are we talking permanent and/or temp bans here? Will be voted on both, or will the first time always be temp?
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
