Not cancel the votes but new people will ofc have the possibility to bring existing rules newly to discussion. It may be totally reasonable to review rules, assuming they can get outdated. And ideally, yes, if it was a real community (real verifyable persons) then any new member must be asked if they had any objections to the existing rules, and given the opportunity to newly discuss them (or add to a constantly ongoing discussion). It just isn't all too practical in certain circumstances.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or people should understand that decentralization means that if they don't agree with the rules on an instance then they can join an instance with rules they agree with and if their current instance goes in a direction they disagree with they can join another instance.

People are just attached to a username and, in this instance's case, to the cool name.

[–] carbon_based@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Well, i was implicitely talking about sh.itjust.works, where the owner just opened up all but their most vital rules to be discussed and decided upon by the users. This applies regardless of the age of a user account. ... And then i was talking about an ideal, in-person situation ... which we don't have here.