• 13 Posts
  • 47 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle
  • If a Kbin member requests deletion of their personal account and they happen to be a community owner, would ownership of that community default to the moderator with the next-longest tenure? That’s how it worked at the bad place, is it the same way here?

    Not sure, but account deletion is a manual process here. I suspect what actually happens is that the magazine is tranferred to the default owner / first admin account. On kbin.social that would be ernest.

    See for example https://kbin.social/m/trans - a sub with few threads. I think the original owner successfully requested account deletion which is why that sub is owned by ernest now.

    See also https://kbin.social/m/kbinMeta/t/258090/How-does-Delete-Account-work-currently

    How long does account deletion normally take after the deletion is requested?

    Not sure of the historical average time. It’s a manual process though so it will take some time for the admins to get to it.

    Also, do the posts get nuked along with the account, or do they remain on Kbin?

    I saw an example of this some months ago. It seems like the posts do get nuked, though with recent updates I’m not 100% certain that this is still the case. Again see /m/trans - most likely it was one of those subs where most of the threads were started by the owner posting, so when the owner’s account was deleted, so to did those threads and posts.

    Actually it’s worse than this - as the entire thread is gone, including other commenters’ replies.


  • The new article links to an academic article which describes the full legal theory, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3978095

    The short version, from the news article, is this:

    “It appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section 3 did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.”

    The academic article goes on in some detail hypothesizing why this might have been the case. Basically at the time it was written, every former President had been some other kind of Officer first, and even today Drumpf is the sole exception, so the omission of the P and VP might have been a sort of compromise to make it easier to get that amendment passed.

    The academic article does a good job of proposing that it’s not a simple oversight - remember that a former US President had joined the Confederacy at that time, so this sort of thing was exactly at the top of their minds.

    As much as I would personally disagree with this, I have to admit that the legal arguments made seem very sound to my layman’s understanding of things. Really unfortunate, though I do see a silver lining here - most other challenges have dealt with how hard it is to define an insurrection and if Drumpf really participated or not. At least the judge here did indeed agree with the fact that Drumpf was part of an insurrection.

    Perhaps States can pass laws that, in addition to requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns to be eligible to stand in that State, also require that candidates a) never took part in an insurrection or b) apologized for it. As Drumpf would never apologize, he’d thus not be eligible to stand.