(January 14, 2016 at 4:22 pm)Losty Wrote: I'm still completely against the ignore feature.

I don't use it either.

(January 14, 2016 at 4:22 pm)Losty Wrote: I'm still completely against the ignore feature.

I've used the ignore feature on precisely three individuals, two of whom are no longer here.

(January 14, 2016 at 4:29 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(January 14, 2016 at 4:22 pm)Losty Wrote: I'm still completely against the ignore feature.

I've used the ignore feature on precisely three individuals, two of whom are no longer here.

I have used it too. It caused nothing but hassle and resulted in nothing more than ignored person taking longer to get banned.

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.

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? 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.

This isn't a power which states we can ban anyone for any reason. 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.

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.

Ultimately the owners own the board. My experience in 15 years the better boards are the ones where it isn't a delegated push button action in the moment, but in chambers. Seems that if it were simply "I the owner give you free licence in the moment, to the mods" You'd notice lots more quick and sudden bans. I've been on here for years and seen very few bans outside of clear sock puppets and trolling and spam.

I do not envy their job having been a admin and mod on prior boards, and it is no fun having to tell someone your hands are tied. I don't think the staff here wants more power at all. I think for them they are like any business, looking to keep and maintain an environment where a diversity of voices can partake.

I think it is more important for us, as members, to know the difference between a broken rule and merely being offended. Atheists especially have to remember off the web, just our mere mentioning our non belief to many is blasphemy and or considered evil.

I think the processes of making requests to look at behaviors wont go away. And as they said, it isn't sudden in the moment and there is stop gap measures so that no one person can do whatever they want.

I think so...it seems that if someone is having that negative of an influence, there must be a rule they're breaking. I still think the rules we already have in place are ambiguous enough that the mods could potentially ban anyone negative without this new power.
I also still think the new power isn't hurting anyone except maybe a temporary feeling of unease. Should wear off as people become more sure that it doesn't make us more likely to get banned.

Eta. Was in response to Tibs not Brian.

@Tibs: Well said.

All I can add is that "overwhelmingly negative influence" to me means turning this:



into this:



Or worse, this:

(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.

(January 14, 2016 at 4:44 pm)Losty Wrote: I think so...it seems that if someone is having that negative of an influence, there must be a rule they're breaking.

Oh, you'd be surprised. Some of them are pretty good at staying just outside the five-mile limit.

(January 14, 2016 at 4:09 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(January 14, 2016 at 4:06 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: Another way to go would to be to hold one nuclear detonation yearly in a ritual way.  We could all dress up like savages, hoot around an open fire, get drunk and then watch the sacrifice.  It might appease some supernatural being, or at least scratch a primitive itch?

I keep asking but no one will give me nukes.

This is a sidebar story,

but I have a buddy who has a daughter aged 14.

They live right around the corner from a little grocery store.

Her mother put together a little grocery list
and was about to send her daughter to the store to pick up a few items.

My buddy spoke up and said, "Oh, I need a few things, too,"
and his wife said, "well, add them to the list" and left the list on the table for him,
while their daughter put her shoes on and got the money from her mom.

My buddy goes to the list and adds a few items,
one of which is "Weapons-Grade Uranium".

about 15 minutes later, while the girl is at the store,
the phone rings.

She is calling from her cellphone, confused:

" What does 'Weapons-Grade Uranium' look like?
I asked the guy here and he said that he doesn't think they carry it. "