TBH, this thread shouldn't have been made in the first place. Us users that haven't been in the position of the staff's don't exactly know how good they are. If they really are as good as they say then opening a thread like this would've only resulted in either drama or an irrational fear in the minds of users with unpopular views.
I wonder what the purpose was to opening a thread like this?
It's important to have diversity in a forum, users with unpopular views are part of this diversity, without a diverse member list a forum will eventually get bland and tasteless. Perhaps it would've been better to not create such a thread at all. If someone is purposefully ruining the experience of other users then give them 3 warnings before banning them, all this can be done without a dramatic name like "Nuclear option" ... Perhaps a thread with content that says "We care about the experience of users and won't tolerate someone purposefully ruining it. We will issue 3 warnings before banning you. If you think the warnings were not justified, report the issue." would've worked better really, I think. Just saying..
I wonder what the purpose was to opening a thread like this?
It's important to have diversity in a forum, users with unpopular views are part of this diversity, without a diverse member list a forum will eventually get bland and tasteless. Perhaps it would've been better to not create such a thread at all. If someone is purposefully ruining the experience of other users then give them 3 warnings before banning them, all this can be done without a dramatic name like "Nuclear option" ... Perhaps a thread with content that says "We care about the experience of users and won't tolerate someone purposefully ruining it. We will issue 3 warnings before banning you. If you think the warnings were not justified, report the issue." would've worked better really, I think. Just saying..
