RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
January 14, 2016 at 4:48 pm
(This post was last modified: January 14, 2016 at 4:57 pm by Napoléon.)
(January 14, 2016 at 4:38 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Everyone seems to be focused on the "even if no rules have been technically violated" aspect of the new power, whilst ignoring the "overwhelmingly negative influence on the forums as a whole" bit, which to me is the more important aspect.
I wouldn't say everyone. Most people seem quite on board. I feel very much in the minority in my opinion on the matter.
And yes, I'm focusing on that aspect. Rightfully so. It undermines the existing rules. Ofcourse I'm going to focus on that aspect.
Quote:Honestly, if this was a new rule that just said "Members who have an overwhelmingly negative influence on the forums will be banned." would there still be a load of people complaining?
No, and you know this.
Quote: If we had that rule, it would require only a majority of staff to enact (like other rules), so in that respect it would actually be more powerful as a rule that what we just implemented.
What is stopping you from placing the same limitation in terms of unanimous voting, to this? Nothing.
In fact, you already have different quorum requirements for different measures. There is literally no reason why this cannot be a rule, and saying it would be more powerful is utter hogwash.
Quote:This isn't a power which states we can ban anyone for any reason.
Nobody said it was.
It is a power that in your own words allows you to ban people regardless of whether or not they have broken any rules however.
I honestly get the feeling you don't properly understand the contention here. It even seems as though you don't really understand the actual ramification of calling it a 'power' instead of a simple rule.
Quote:This is a power which states that people who have an overwhelmingly negative influence on the forums as a whole can be banned, and even if the majority of staff think that a member is an overwhelmingly negative influence, it takes just one staff member dissenting to negate the ban.
Why you can't just make this a rule instead of opening it up as a way to negate the rules themselves is confusing.
Quote:
If people think it would work better as a regular rule, I'm sure we can discuss the merits of implementing it that way, especially if it would put some minds at ease, but honestly I don't think it makes much of a difference.
I think it makes the world of difference.