There has never been a rule for over-turning a consensus decision. Infact, as per mod policies users are not allowed to question once a consensus is reached
instead people got an automatic step down after 30 days now they need a vote. nothing is being overturned that wasn't already overturned by default. i pushed for a stricter ban policy than that and got it. it may be that the other rule got shifted into this lane by default when it used to not be (terrible sentence sorry) but that wasn't the intent of the rule. you're confusing two very different moves.
Please don't lie to me, it's irritating.
please don't accuse me of lying. that's not related to vote to tighten up ban rules. that's related to changing Hokes reduction would be illegal if it was done under that authority. instead it was done with the restructuring of the rules regarding rule 5/3.
The dominant ideology
with exoduses the people who originally wanted the rule change had a majority (not news thats already been on other meta threads) and i'm meh on the issue. 30 days seemed long for what hokes did but rules should be enforced fairly across the board. trying to get to a place where the rules are harsh and agreed on moving forward.
Hokes is still banned for the exact same rule he broke the punishment got adjusted down due to perceptions of fairness. that seems an odd thing to be distrustful of: retroactive mild downgrades of punishments they received. Hokes was already being punished for the rule he broke.
so most of this is you mixing up different rules actions and implying a correlation between two unrelated moves done for different reasons ironically hitting on a rule making things stricter as the justification for adjusting a ban length when that's be definition not covered in bad reduction claim. has it been a month since his last ban expired? no, ergo not valid