RE: A quick word on "Overwhelmingly Negative Influences"
October 20, 2016 at 9:17 pm
(This post was last modified: October 20, 2016 at 9:22 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
No, it wouldn't; and it's not irrational.
I'm looking at it from the perspective of someone who's moderated a freethought forum myself, where free expression was a cherished value. The rational computation was, for us, do they add more interest than they add repulsive influence? You get to keep one member at the expense of losing four (so far as my count goes). How much free speech are you gaining? How much are you losing?
I am not blaming Staff for the exits the individual members have chosen for themselves. But I am saying that policy plays a role in it. You can take my words at value or not as you see fit.
I never said everyone left over ONI, but I know for a fact that at least two left specifically over the mishandling of Drich's bullshit. They're welcome to announce themselves to the forum, if they care to come back at all.
No matter the good intentions of you Staffers, the fact is that this policy is causing great members to leave. I'm not asking that someone be banned for religious beliefs, I'm not asking for someone to be banned for pissing off the Staff. I'm asking that the standard of "overwhelming negative influence" be assessed in accordance with the adjective the Staff itself has used: overwhelming. Chasing members off is also an influence. If you're okay with that, great. I'm just saying that it may not be in the best interests of the forum to run down that track.
Do a cost/benefit analysis of the way this "rule" is implemented, and assign value to how it has affected the forum. If at that point y'all still decide he should yammer on at the expense of contributions from others who give us much more richness, that's your decision, and so be it.
I'm looking at it from the perspective of someone who's moderated a freethought forum myself, where free expression was a cherished value. The rational computation was, for us, do they add more interest than they add repulsive influence? You get to keep one member at the expense of losing four (so far as my count goes). How much free speech are you gaining? How much are you losing?
I am not blaming Staff for the exits the individual members have chosen for themselves. But I am saying that policy plays a role in it. You can take my words at value or not as you see fit.
I never said everyone left over ONI, but I know for a fact that at least two left specifically over the mishandling of Drich's bullshit. They're welcome to announce themselves to the forum, if they care to come back at all.
No matter the good intentions of you Staffers, the fact is that this policy is causing great members to leave. I'm not asking that someone be banned for religious beliefs, I'm not asking for someone to be banned for pissing off the Staff. I'm asking that the standard of "overwhelming negative influence" be assessed in accordance with the adjective the Staff itself has used: overwhelming. Chasing members off is also an influence. If you're okay with that, great. I'm just saying that it may not be in the best interests of the forum to run down that track.
Do a cost/benefit analysis of the way this "rule" is implemented, and assign value to how it has affected the forum. If at that point y'all still decide he should yammer on at the expense of contributions from others who give us much more richness, that's your decision, and so be it.
