RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
January 22, 2016 at 2:57 am
(This post was last modified: January 22, 2016 at 3:29 am by Excited Penguin.)
I think the fact that you felt the need to retroactively make up a new rule after abusing your powers in my case speaks volumes as to the inpracticality of this rule and raises multiple concernes regarding censorship of speech, mob rule, overreaching of authority and so on. Congratulations, Atheist Forums. You have essentially become what you despise, if only in name.
I am awaiting instructions and/or explanations, privately or publicly, whatever the staff thinks appropriate, as to what I did wrong or may do wrong in the future so as to avoid running foul of this despicably authoritarian rule.
I already know I'll get banned no matter what I say. What you seem to fail to realise is the long-term effects of enforcing such an unthinkable constrain of free speech. Banning people for not agreeing with them? For not liking them? Does this sound familiar at all to any sound mind around here? So just because all staff agrees that a certain individual is "disruptive"(whatever that means) and a "negative influence"(whatever that means) that justifies banishing them, despite not being able to come up with sound reasons for why that might be or why those reasons are justifiable for doing so? You are basically telling everyone you are the ultimate authority on what is right to do around here, based merely on that, your authority. No evidence of wrong doing or sound reasoning employed to make a good case with that evidence, just unanimous agreement. Doesn't this strike you a little odd, seeing how theists use the same kinds of mechanisms(and have done so for millenia) to arive at what most of you here hold to be unfactual descriptions of the world?
I rest my case with the casual reader who is not staff.
I am awaiting instructions and/or explanations, privately or publicly, whatever the staff thinks appropriate, as to what I did wrong or may do wrong in the future so as to avoid running foul of this despicably authoritarian rule.
I already know I'll get banned no matter what I say. What you seem to fail to realise is the long-term effects of enforcing such an unthinkable constrain of free speech. Banning people for not agreeing with them? For not liking them? Does this sound familiar at all to any sound mind around here? So just because all staff agrees that a certain individual is "disruptive"(whatever that means) and a "negative influence"(whatever that means) that justifies banishing them, despite not being able to come up with sound reasons for why that might be or why those reasons are justifiable for doing so? You are basically telling everyone you are the ultimate authority on what is right to do around here, based merely on that, your authority. No evidence of wrong doing or sound reasoning employed to make a good case with that evidence, just unanimous agreement. Doesn't this strike you a little odd, seeing how theists use the same kinds of mechanisms(and have done so for millenia) to arive at what most of you here hold to be unfactual descriptions of the world?
I rest my case with the casual reader who is not staff.