(January 12, 2016 at 7:59 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I think this is an utter load of useless crap.  Users have the option to block members they don't care to deal with - if we don't enable them, then they'll dry up and blow away.

And how - exactly - do staff determine 'a negative influence'?  Are there criteria, or just a general sense of 'we dislike this person'?

If staff have the option to permanently ban a member who has not violated any rules, then just chuck the rules book, because the staff have, essentially, just granted themselves the power to bounce anyone at any time for the most nebulous of reasons.

Boru

Tread carefully my friend!

(January 12, 2016 at 8:28 pm)*Deidre* Wrote:

(January 12, 2016 at 8:12 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Conservative or not, it has been stated that staff now have the ability to ban someone for not breaking any rules.

I'm fully aware of the nature and purpose of the rules, but you miss my point.  As you say, the rulebook is there to benefit the users of the Forum.  But the common penalty for violating rules is (ultimately) a permanent ban.  So, if you can ban people who don't break rules, then there seems no real point in having the rules in the first place.

By and large, the members here are adults (emotionally, if sometimes not legally) who all know how to use the ignore function.  It seems pointless to give staff the power to do something the members can do for themselves.

Boru

When you have a poster who keeps insulting everyone, in nearly every thread he/she enters...it just brings the forum down, when the person is just left to keep trashing perfectly good topics. It strikes me as this will only be 'enforced' if the person is a chronic problem. The ignore feature only goes so far. lol

My point is that it goes far enough.

Boru

(January 12, 2016 at 8:25 pm)Rhythm Wrote: We've made a commitment to you, as users, that doesn't allow us to point at your ignore function as though it excused us from our duties as mods/admins.  I do understand and appreciate your concern, in principle.  I'll keep it in mind if the option ever arises.

Oh, ffs, no one's asking you to do anything of the sort. That being said, no one's asked you to be babysitters for the members, either.

Boru

After some thought on this, my opinion has changed. I side with BrianSoddingBoru4 - it's a bit of an overreaction and the ignore feature does indeed go far enough.

(January 12, 2016 at 8:39 pm)ignoramus Wrote:

(January 12, 2016 at 7:59 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I think this is an utter load of useless crap.  Users have the option to block members they don't care to deal with - if we don't enable them, then they'll dry up and blow away.

And how - exactly - do staff determine 'a negative influence'?  Are there criteria, or just a general sense of 'we dislike this person'?

If staff have the option to permanently ban a member who has not violated any rules, then just chuck the rules book, because the staff have, essentially, just granted themselves the power to bounce anyone at any time for the most nebulous of reasons.

Boru

Tread carefully my friend!

If I have to 'tread carefully' because I'm voicing a legitimate concern over what I think is a serious issue, we all may as well pack our things and go.

Boru

(January 12, 2016 at 8:48 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: After some thought on this, my opinion has changed. I side with BrianSoddingBoru4 - it's a bit of an overreaction and the ignore feature does indeed go far enough.

Ta, Bella.

Boru

(January 12, 2016 at 8:12 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Conservative or not, it has been stated that staff now have the ability to ban someone for not breaking any rules.

The way I'm interpreting this new staff ability is that users who chronically come just short of breaking the rules should be able to have disciplinary action enacted upon them.  They might not technically be breaking a rule but they (as I read the rules) are breaking the spirit of the rules, and flirting with breaking rules over and over can be just as damaging to a forum as full-on breaking them.

It may even be worse because the user can remain active and continue to poison the community while always being just shy of committing a bannable infraction, while someone who joins, runs rampant for a few days or weeks and gets banned is more of an easily forgotten flash in the pan.

I trust that the mods are discerning enough to use their new powers wisely.

(January 12, 2016 at 8:50 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(January 12, 2016 at 8:48 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: After some thought on this, my opinion has changed. I side with BrianSoddingBoru4 - it's a bit of an overreaction and the ignore feature does indeed go far enough.

Ta, Bella.

Boru

Very welcome Brian, if you do end up leaving these forums - any idea which other ones you might join or are currently a member of? Feel free to PM me them if the mods don't like that being discussed here.

The ignore feature is great and I would be lost without it. However, a disruptive member can deliberately make themselves the focus of any thread and derail it. This used to happen with another member for a while and it really pissed me off. The ignore feature can't overcome this. It made me just give up on a lot of debates I'd otherwise participate in.

I'd be worried about something like this if I didn't have great confidence in the staff. But ultimately, this is a private forum, it's like Tiberius' house. As such, someone who walks into your house and carefully avoids any stated rules yet deliberately infuriates most people there to the point where they don't even want to be there anymore should be asked to alter their behaviour or get out of the house.

I fully expect warnings to be given for potential candidates, and only someone who really is here just to annoy us (which is basically trolling) or someone not mentally capable of sensible conversation (more tricky) is going to carry on anyway.

:Shows up at Bella's digital door with shepherds and three sharply dressed men in tall boots:

Achtung!  Citizen......we have heard disturbing reports of your forum infidelity. Explain yourself.