If someone were so 'out of place' to warrant a ban of this kind I'd of thought that somewhere along the line they would indeed be breaking the rules anyway.
I think what Brian says is right, it's always been one of the main principles of this forum (in my mind) to be open to members of all kinds but now we're saying we can boot someone out because they don't fit in?
That's essentially what it sounds like. But if we're saying it's actually to get rid of members that are being disruptive, then why not just ban them for that?
Surely it's already covered under the existing rules if a member is so unanimously despised. If they aren't breaking any rules then I personally would not be comfortable banning said member, but surely if they were so despised it's usually because of a banable reason anyway.
I find it hard even imagining a scenario where such a power would be used anyway though, but if it were it seems like it would essentially be banning someone because we don't collectively like them.
On principle alone I'd have thought most of us would oppose this?
I think what Brian says is right, it's always been one of the main principles of this forum (in my mind) to be open to members of all kinds but now we're saying we can boot someone out because they don't fit in?
That's essentially what it sounds like. But if we're saying it's actually to get rid of members that are being disruptive, then why not just ban them for that?
Surely it's already covered under the existing rules if a member is so unanimously despised. If they aren't breaking any rules then I personally would not be comfortable banning said member, but surely if they were so despised it's usually because of a banable reason anyway.
I find it hard even imagining a scenario where such a power would be used anyway though, but if it were it seems like it would essentially be banning someone because we don't collectively like them.
On principle alone I'd have thought most of us would oppose this?
