(February 6, 2017 at 12:51 am)ignoramus Wrote: I absolutely agree about the click bait rule, but we lost a valued member for all the wrong reasons.
We got grid of the baby with the bath water. Min's posts were informative and made in good spirit. No one complained about them.

This charlie foxtrot is worse then the heatheness male nips saga!

Actually, we lost two. One to the rule, the other to the aftermath. Their choice, so whatever. I'm of the mind that click baiting is dishonest, though I've never cared enough to bitch about it. Others see nothing wrong with it while some actively like it.

While I agree with the new rule, I don't care if it stays or goes as I think it will have a minimal impact, if any at all.

It probably could have been handled with an announcement asking people not to do it, but I'm not on the staff.

(February 6, 2017 at 12:47 am)pool the great Wrote: Why do we even have this rule when people don't even report threads for being click baity? Seems to me some admins just didn't like it and made up a rule to suit themselves.

Yeah, you're absolutely right. We just want to play this forum like a cheap violin, because having power over an internet forum gets us off.

Or maybe you missed something. Like Tiberius explaining earlier about where the rule came from.

(February 6, 2017 at 12:32 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Fuck this poll.

Fuck all polls, tbh

(February 6, 2017 at 12:47 am)pool the great Wrote: Why do we even have this rule when people don't even report threads for being click baity? Seems to me some admins just didn't like it and made up a rule to suit themselves.

Don't fix something till the damage has already been done right? Why does it bother you though, do you want to post click-bait?

I'm just saying this rule is unnecessary but I doubt it will be retracted, even after driving away a member like Min. So it doesn't make sense for me to complain anyway. Do what you will.

(February 6, 2017 at 1:30 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(February 6, 2017 at 12:51 am)ignoramus Wrote: I absolutely agree about the click bait rule, but we lost a valued member for all the wrong reasons.
We got grid of the baby with the bath water. Min's posts were informative and made in good spirit. No one complained about them.

This charlie foxtrot is worse then the heatheness male nips saga!

Actually, we lost two. One to the rule, the other to the aftermath. Their choice, so whatever. I'm of the mind that click baiting is dishonest, though I've never cared enough to bitch about it. Others see nothing wrong with it while some actively like it.

While I agree with the new rule, I don't care if it stays or goes as I think it will have a minimal impact, if any at all.

It probably could have been handled with an announcement asking people not to do it, but I'm not on the staff.

We did announce it: https://atheistforums.org/thread-47370.html

We always announce rule changes.

(February 6, 2017 at 1:55 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(February 6, 2017 at 1:30 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Actually, we lost two. One to the rule, the other to the aftermath. Their choice, so whatever. I'm of the mind that click baiting is dishonest, though I've never cared enough to bitch about it. Others see nothing wrong with it while some actively like it.

While I agree with the new rule, I don't care if it stays or goes as I think it will have a minimal impact, if any at all.

It probably could have been handled with an announcement asking people not to do it, but I'm not on the staff.

We did announce it: https://atheistforums.org/thread-47370.html

We always announce rule changes.

I know that.

To clarify my point, I think it could have been handled with an announcement without a rules change.

I just don't see the difference. Whether we ask once that people stop truncating their thread titles or making them vague, or we make a rule about it, the outcome is the same, no?

Sad Min's gone but ultimately I support the rule in principle in practicality however I question it . But it's better to have rules then allow our forum devolve into 4chan

If anything I think the fact that Minimalist didn't change anything despite there being a new rule shows that just asking people to do it wouldn't have worked.

We try to have everything that is / is not allowed codified in a set of rules precisely because we don't feel that we have the authority to act without them. We aren't staff who can just decide to ban someone for any reason we think of. We have to codify that reason as a rule, announce it, and then see if people break it. That's just how our system works and I personally think it works pretty well that way.