Rule Change (New Staff Power)

[Losty]

If your intention is to disrupt that is trolling and against the rules. Right?

Not really, as trolling is currently defined. It is possible to disrupt the forum without making "deliberately provocative posts with the aim of upsetting a member or inciting an angry or otherwise emotional response".

I disagree. How could that rule be more open to interpretation? The problem is not the unambiguity of the rule, but likely the inability on the staff to decide whether or not something is deliberate. It's not that you can't look at any post and decide together that it's deliberate trolling. It's that you all want to be super sure. Why would anyone think that's a bad thing though? I guess because it's stalls banning the trolls. I personally am fine with you guys nuking the trolls (read as: please perma ban EP), but I also find that you guys seem to take a long time and spend a lot of thought on these types of decisions to be admirable.

You can't really skirt around a rule like that though. It's open to interpretation.

Well, ultimately every rule is open to interpretation. That's why we have the useful disclaimer that we have: "the right to enforce the following rules on its membership according to staff interpretation. This disclaimer is put in place to allow the spirit of the rules to trump any literal interpretation of the rules".

That was my point xD

I bet. The debating is the part I like. Having a diverse team is a great thing.

It's the thought of mass debating that you really like, isn't it?

It's the thought of a forum team that takes their responsibilities as seriously as you guys seem to that I like. There are mass things that could be fun, but there wouldn't be any debating going on

[The Valkyrie]

I am like my father. I trust people until they prove themselves untrustworthy.

Maybe I’m wrong here. Is there anyone on the current staff who should not be trusted with the power this option gives them? Is it possible some rogue staff member with an overbearing personality could convince all the other staff members to unanimously ban someone just because the staff member doesn’t like that particular user?

I'm TRYING to be good.

[brewer]

I'm TRYING to be good.

I don't want that! Please STOP!!!!

I may be speaking for others also.

[Rhondazvous]

Maybe I’m wrong here. Is there anyone on the current staff who should not be trusted with the power this option gives them? Is it possible some rogue staff member with an overbearing personality could convince all the other staff members to unanimously ban someone just because the staff member doesn’t like that particular user?

I wouldn't trust that Stimbo guy with a plastic spoon.

That's why I just let him lick the bowl.

[account_inactive]

Is there anyone on the current staff who should not be trusted with the power this option gives them?

No, everyone on the moderation team seems cool.

Is it possible some rogue staff member with an overbearing personality could convince all the other staff members to unanimously ban someone just because the staff member doesn’t like that particular user?

I thought that a couple of nights ago but after some thinking, nah it doesn't seem that likely.

[Rhondazvous]

I am like my father. I trust people until they prove themselves untrustworthy.

Maybe I’m wrong here. Is there anyone on the current staff who should not be trusted with the power this option gives them? Is it possible some rogue staff member with an overbearing personality could convince all the other staff members to unanimously ban someone just because the staff member doesn’t like that particular user?

I'm TRYING to be good.

Ah, but there is a difference between being good and being trustworthy. In fact, I get my best kudos when I’m bad.

[The Valkyrie]

I'm TRYING to be good.

Ah, but there is a difference between being good and being trustworthy. In fact, I get my best kudos when I’m bad.

But trustworthy to who?

I might be trustworthy to our spammers and trolls and no one else...



Yeah, I get most of my kudos when I'm bad, too.

Anyway, you're not bad...you're just drawn that way.

[Ravenshire]

Maybe this has been mentioned, but I'm not slogging through another 10 pages to find out.

A condition has been identified and the staff has determined what they believe to be the best solution to that condition. To all those who are bitching about it like somebody killed your new puppy, why don't you make some viable suggestions as an alternative to the new power? For fuck sake, our staff is more than reasonable and if one of you hits on an idea that better than the current one, and that works within the framework of the forum software, I'm dead certain they'll give it due consideration.

[Heat]

You know what i'm just not going to respond anymore because I don't feel like getting misrepresented.

Then perhaps you should concentrate on representing yourself more clearly. I'm not saying that to be insulting, but a forum is a verbal medium; so communication is sort of important.

Let's just say that the scenario painted in this thread is accurate. It's actually the opposite, but we'll go with it for the moment. A civil war breaks out among the Staff. One or two want a certain member banned so badly they can taste it. Others disagree violently and aren't afraid of making it clear. The rest decide not to get involved. What's the worst that can happen? Every Staff member has access to the ban function, with options to determine the ban length. Purging is also standard kit, which erases everything about a member except their profile page.

Point is that no high-order action of this nature is completely irreversible. Even purged accounts can be reinstated from database backups, though I believe not unscathed (I think kudos and reputation levels are lost). The reason this doesn't happen as a matter of course is that purging is reserved for spammers - and I don't think we want those things back.

This for me is an issue of trust. Mods have powers unavailable to grassroots members, and Admins even more arcane powers that would have you screaming for the hills if you only knew. Possibly. Being on Staff means being in a position of trust - like any relationship, if that trust isn't there then nothing is; and nothing is going to restore it.

I'm responding now since I didn't have time to at school.

Here's what i'll happily concede:

I messed up thinking my argument was original. I had my opinions, but didn't think through the application, or the fact that the "possibility" I spoke of was a well known fact, and not any new information I thought I was providing.
However, the reason I said I was being misrepresented, is one that dates back to many other posts on these forums. I have become increasingly agitated with this. Notice how I said "possibility" neutrally, I think you realize this, and realize that I simply just didn't understand the entire broader view. Contrary, many many times where I have felt misrepresented on this forum, it's when people jump to extremes for no reason even when I specifically go out of my way to clarify what I am not saying. I won't name past conflicts, even though I definitely would like to. 

But, this misrepresentation can be seen in SteelCurtain's post, reasoning for why I am frustrated being how when I say "Possibility that some sort of conflicting judgement could end up in unfair action taking place" I say this very neutrally for a reason, not suggesting that it will. I even responded to Steel clarifying this. However, Steel, like the other people I have gotten mad at in the past, still pushed this willfully ignorant and ever-so-frustrating notion that I was claiming that "Staff is corrupt", and had a "Low opinion/expectation of staff". It's this mindset that people have, I can never understand, that somehow someone has to be either incredibly in favor of one side, or the other. Simply because I suggested something slightly in favor of one side, especially clarifying that this suggestion was only that the possibility of a single scenario could occur, DOES NOT mean I am extreme in this view, and to suggest this repeatedly after being corrected, not only is willful ignorance, but a failure to attempt to have a proper, meaningful, cooperative conversation with others. That is exactly why I am frustrated whenever I feel misrepresented, and I hope Stimbo, you understand where I am coming from.

[Losty]

Maybe this has been mentioned, but I'm not slogging through another 10 pages to find out.

A condition has been identified and the staff has determined what they believe to be the best solution to that condition. To all those who are bitching about it like somebody killed your new puppy, why don't you make some viable suggestions as an alternative to the new power? For fuck sake, our staff is more than reasonable and if one of you hits on an idea that better than the current one, and that works within the framework of the forum software, I'm dead certain they'll give it due consideration.

I really don't see how anyone is bitching though. Is it not possible to have a rational discussion with your opinions without being accused of bitching?