(August 15, 2010 at 4:04 am)Saerules Wrote: Are you by any chance aware that this has the potential to empty some of the best members on this site? Some of the staff can feel the decision was wrong... but I think that 74% is pretty fucking hard to argue against. Especially when many of the members who think so will simply disregard this new rule, as it really is that stupid.I am well aware. I'm also well aware from the comments in this thread that many of them are understanding of the reasons why we did this, and are staying with the community. If any member disregards the new rule, they will be warned.
Quote:What you have noticed I think is more because of our increased forum population, and increased willingness to discuss subjects many consider taboo (IE: objectifying women, as well as giving warnings for being encouraging).There isn't anything wrong with discussing taboo subjects. We aren't banning them. All we are making sure is that when discussing taboo subjects (or any subject), people don't start losing it and attacking people personally. There isn't any reason to do so.
Quote:So basically we can't be offended anymore. Tough floater... Im offended by this. Where is the disciplinary action that is required for the staff? They seem to have forgotten that government comes from the community... and not the other way around. 74% of the community already spoke... there should be nothing more to add without a new poll with drastically different results. As is, i should think you've pissed many of us off with this change.You can be offended, of course you can. The point is, if you are offended because someone has personally attacked you, the attacker will be warned. If you are offended by someone's arguments, there isn't anything we can do about it.
As for the staff, we have to follow the rules, just as everyone else. That is how it has always been. I don't care if I've pissed off people with the change; if you think that should warrant disciplinary action for the staff, then you haven't understood the new rule at all.
Quote:Yadaladairaquoi. I think you've gotten pretty ban-happy, Hayter. Is every minor infraction dealt with by the staff now? Someone needs to go check out some sociological classes... he could well learn that communities police themselves. What they staff needs to do is recognize their community for what it is... not their community for what the staff is.Every minor infraction was already being dealt by with the staff. Nothing has changed there. All that has changed is an addition to the current rules of the forum. As for communities policing themselves; I think the recent behaviour has nulled that hypothesis.
Quote:The forums still have civility, you twit. Now would you kindly stop trying to stamp it out? I don't think Anto Kennedy was welcome... or Dry Land Fish... and they believed honestly that homosexuals and muslims were as they said. The staff banned them for their "hate-filled" views. You should unban them if you go through with this idiocy, lest you send a mixed message.We are not going to unban anyone, and I don't see how we would be sending a mixed message if we didn't. They were banned for being bigots.
Quote:Actually it is. It is called flaming, which is in your rules.Only since this new rule. We took out the rule against insulting people (flaming) ages ago; had the vote and decided to put parts of it back in, and since that disaster of a decision, we have had to put the rule regarding flaming back in.
