RE: [split] Peanut Gallery Commentary-and the drama over the nudity thread continues
July 10, 2016 at 6:55 pm
(This post was last modified: July 10, 2016 at 7:24 pm by bennyboy.)
(July 10, 2016 at 1:41 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Without having read all of what was going on, I'd like to point back to the excessive negativity clause:
Sometimes a person causes trouble without trolling or breaking the rules per se. They just waste a lot of damn time by being either passive aggressive, harassing, or deliberately ignoring the answers of the staff and bulldozing through.
From the original pages that I read, heathenness had a real problem understanding that no matter what your IDEALS are, you still have to live by the laws of the land or forum or whatever until you can get them changed. This isn't to say I don't condone protest and action against said laws. But disobeying them and being a general nuisance is going to have consequences.
I have to say that the "excessive negativity clause" is just a euphemism for the "don't ignore our torches and pitchforks" clause. It's pretty meaningless because it's so poorly defined (by design). It's like many Korean contracts which state "The terms of this contract may be changed without notice. The employ-EE will accept reasonable changes as defined by the employ-ER." I shit you not-- that's a real clause, found in about 50% of English-teacher contracts in Korea. The forum RULES represent a social contract: "If you follow these rules, you'll be considered a member in good standing." The NEC amends this to: "If you follow these rules, you'll be considered a member in good standing, unless the powers that be decide they don't like your attitude." Why have more than that one rule, then? Just be honest and say, "If you piss off the mods, you're toast."
When faced with a lot of opposition, some of it mocking or disrespectufal, ANYONE will feel, and act, negatively. Very few people here are positive when they're deep in a debate they care about. If there was a "negativity clause," the membership role on these forums would include only those who exclusively post cat memes and respond to all threating ideas with smiley-face icons. And as for "excessive?" Unless the terms are better defined, this amounts to a "Don't piss off those who get to define arbitrary terms, i.e. the mods" clause.
