(October 20, 2016 at 9:29 pm)Bella Morte Wrote:

(October 20, 2016 at 9:17 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: You get to keep one member at the expense of losing four

The forum would probably lose a lot more than that if the staff started to restrict freedom of speech.

Except, I'm not advocating for that. I'm advocating for the staff to follow the rules that they themselves have implemented.

If the rules are faulty, change them. If they're not faulty, enforce them. It's really easy -- shit or get off'n the pot.

It is easy enough for one who is not staff to inform one who is staff how to behave. When in the position of staff, it is not as easy as just doing whatever.

@Thump - Which is exactly what Staff are doing.

The irony of the outrage that we even gave ourselves the option of ONI in the first place is palpable.

(October 20, 2016 at 9:34 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(October 20, 2016 at 9:30 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Can I be blunt and ask, is Rob's exit over this situation we are discussing currently?  Or something else?

I'm pretty sure it's over a personal situation that shouldn't have been forum business anyway, but that was aired a bit in another thread. He expressed similar sentiments there before he left. As far as I know, that situation's a non-issue for the forum.

I don't agree that it's a non-issue for the forum but you're entitled to your opinion on whatever parts of it you know about. I think most people agreed with the one rule pertaining this that Rob wanted anyway or at least with some changes first.

(October 20, 2016 at 9:31 pm)Tiberius Wrote: @thump: My problem is that this member isn't "chasing" members off. The members are leaving on their own accord.

Also, what happens when people start threatening to leave because they don't like member X, Y, or Z? Do we ban X, Y, and Z, even if they haven't broken any rules, just because some people don't like them? Sorry, but that doesn't sound fair.

This is a decision that you, as the owner, have to address. If enough people leave, will it be worth your money to keep the site alive? If folks stay despite the presence of twats like him, is that something you're happy financing?

Of course the members leave of their own accord. But whether you like it or not, you're in the biggest marketplace in the world -- the Internet. Every poster here has plenty of options, and how you spend your own money is your own business.

(October 20, 2016 at 9:41 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: It is easy enough for one who is not staff to inform one who is staff how to behave.   When in the position of staff, it is not as easy as just doing whatever.

Every once in a while KitKat hehe. I didn't even have to offer you ice cream or anything. #soproud

(October 20, 2016 at 9:42 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: The irony of the outrage that we even gave ourselves the option of ONI in the first place is palpable.

I honestly think removing it would remove people's ability to think it's an option for whatever they think is negative. It's a wicked subjective rule.

(October 20, 2016 at 9:41 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: It is easy enough for one who is not staff to inform one who is staff how to behave.   When in the position of staff, it is not as easy as just doing whatever.

Having been staff elsewhere, I'm comfortable standing behind what I've posted.

(October 20, 2016 at 9:46 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(October 20, 2016 at 9:42 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: The irony of the outrage that we even gave ourselves the option of ONI in the first place is palpable.

I honestly think removing it would remove people's ability to think it's an option for whatever they think is negative. It's a wicked subjective rule.

This is exactly the problem with the rule.