RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
January 12, 2016 at 10:19 pm
(This post was last modified: January 12, 2016 at 10:19 pm by Napoléon.)
(January 12, 2016 at 10:08 pm)robvalue Wrote: Nap: I apologize. You are right, you did not say that. I misread your post, twice. My bad! I missed a very important word in the sentence.
Again, my apologies. I didn't intend to misrepresent you.
No worries. Just to clarify: For me (can't speak for anyone else), the problem is if there is a member who is categorically not breaking any rules, but is just a complete arsehole, are we okay with giving staff the option of banning them (regardless of whether this option is ever used)? And are we okay for the staff to decide (regardless of how unanimously) for us as a membership who we deem as such arseholes?
It just opens a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened in my humble opinion when we can already collar these 'arseholes' for actual rule violations. If someone is skirting the rules so much and the disruption is so obvious, why can we not simply ban them for that? We have done so in the past.
I just see this whole thing as creating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and in the process it seems to undermine the rules themselves by saying they don't actually matter because we can ban you even when you aren't breaking the rules.