Rule Change (New Staff Power)

[Angrboda]

I don't have any strong feelings on the rule change, but several thoughts have occurred to me that I wonder about.

First, I wonder if the rule might be better if it specified types of behavior / effects that might be subject to the rule. I recognize that this is a catch all rule and is designed to pick up where such lists fail, but without exemplars, it does sound more arbitrary than it need be. I suppose given the choice between catchall rules and letting some behaviors slip through the cracks, I'm of a divided opinion. Rule 1 was an example of a catchall rule that seems to have been abandoned. While it was comforting to see problem users dealt with, there also seemed to be an unusual rise in the number of bannings. I think given a choice, I would prefer an environment in which people work through such problems via social means, rather than staff action.

The second question which comes to mind is what kind of impression reading words like "Nuclear Option" and catchall rules as broad as this might have on new users. While I understand the wording is a product of forum and staff culture, I wonder if it could be worded in such a way as to be more noob friendly. I realize I'm an odd bird, but one of the first things I do when approaching a new forum is read the rules; in that context, the wording might be somewhat discouraging of new members.

My third question, not well thought out is whether it needs to be so user-centric. I can imagine a "court of last resort" rule which basically that the staff reserves the right to take actions not explicitly outlined in the rules under unanimous consent of the staff (or something to that effect). I seem to recall the rules having such catchall clauses in the past, and am unsure why this rule has to be so specific about user disruption. (And yes I realize this is at odds with the first point; that's the nature of these kind of rules.)

Another random thought is whether or not the rule could be amended to include / replaced by a rule giving "official warnings" for loosely defined "forum disruption". That might add some granularity to the process which otherwise seems somewhat all or nothing.

And I'm just rambling now, so I'll end here.