Rule Change (New Staff Power)

[KevinM1]

That's another thing.  This rule makes perfectly acceptable members fear for their longevity.  We may joke about it, but will such a rule have a chilling effect on users who, rightly or wrongly, consider themselves centers of drama, unpopular views, or whatever?   Perhaps a strict sequence of disciplinary actions needs to be spelled out for this rule by itself, a la the use of official warnings?

This is where it opens up a can of worms that just doesn't need to be opened.

In this very thread we've seen a relatively new member concerned over the fact this 'power' might be abused. They were instantly bashed by the rest of the established membership for thinking what a hell of a lot of new users will likely think (rightly or wrongly).

Piggybacking on Jormungandr's previous post if I may, what are new members realistically going to think when they read about "the nuclear option"? They don't have the understanding that we do that the staff are as fantastic as they are.

It comes back to it being irrelevant how good the staff are and how much we trust them. It's not even about that.

People bemoan 'forum drama' but what exactly does calling something like this a 'nuclear option' do? Honestly?

And if someone does get banned from this. Let's just say for arguments sake. They haven't broken the rules, but everyone (including myself) reviles them as an asshole. It's still not right IMO to ban such a member. Not for such vague and wishy washy reasoning that is not clearly defined in the rules in the first place.

If a member is so bad that everyone can't stand them being here, then I'd place a pretty big bet that they'd already done something actionable within the scope of the rules, and if not, modify the rules. You can't have an 'option' that allows, regardless of whether it would ever happen, for a user who hasn't broken said rules to be banned. In my honest opinion having such an option seems to flounder everything I thought this forum represented, and I'm quite surprised at the amount of people who think it is in fact a good idea.

I'll shut my pie hole now though, probably said enough. Don't want people to think I'm whining.

Maybe I'm weird, but I have always recognized, regardless of what forum I'm on, that my ability to post and be a member is a privilege granted to me by forum ownership.  I don't actually have any right to post since the forum is owned and operated by a private entity who can do whatever they wish with it, and a ban doesn't actually impart harm.  So any new (or existing) member not understanding that fundamental truth to message boards is merely naive.  We're here because we're allowed to be here.  We can't claim any entitlement to the place.  That's one reason (among many) why it's better to be a positively contributing member of whatever forum you're on, because you're not entitled to be there, and your ass can be kicked out.  

Honestly, this staff is by far the most lenient I have ever encountered.  I'm amazed by the patience and restraint they've shown with certain, obvious members.  People that, at PHPF, I would've swung the ban hammer at far sooner.  So, I'm not worried about the nuke being used when it shouldn't because this crew has already shown a remarkable resistance to banning members.

And again, there's a difference between "Member X is an asshole" and "Member X is cocking up every thread they're in, causing people to abandon the place."  The nuke is for the second scenario, not the first.

I already gave an example of a member on PHPF who didn't break the written rules, but left destruction in her wake.  It can and does happen, so you can't just assume that these people will be repeat rule violators.  That's why it's necessary to have a provision to cover the gap.  It's the outliers that kill forums, not the spam bots and obvious trolls.