Rule Change (New Staff Power)

[Napoléon]

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?

[account_inactive]

But ultimately, this is a private forum, it's like Tiberius' house.

Yeah, it's a private forum and I guess they can do whatever the hell they want; but introducing stupid new powers like this will only drive away users.

[ignoramus]

Jokes aside, I do understand the spirit of the rule, Tibs.
As long as you have hard and fast rules, users will push them to a whisker away from being banned and no further.
In the meantime, the damage has already been done to the general "feel" of this forum.

This type of rule is exactly what is needed. One which cannot be circumvented.

[robvalue]

But ultimately, this is a private forum, it's like Tiberius' house.

Yeah, it's a private forum and I guess they can do whatever the hell they want; but introducing stupid new powers like this will only drive away users.

Well, I can't say I agree with that. I don't think it's stupid, it's addressing willful saboteurs. If we saw it being applied unfairly, I'm sure it would drive people away. But I've been here during a period before where the atmosphere was so bad, it felt like no one wanted to be here. That is far more likely to drive people away, IMO.

Like Ignor says, while trying to locate exactly how they have broken the rules while the person deliberately flaunts them as close to the knuckle as possible, the damage has been done already. It's kind of like saying, "Look, it's clear you aren't interested in being part of the community. You're here to disrupt it. Cut it out."

[account_inactive]

Yeah, it's a private forum and I guess they can do whatever the hell they want; but introducing stupid new powers like this will only drive away users.

Well, I can't say I agree with that. I don't think it's stupid, it's addressing willful saboteurs. If we saw it being applied unfairly, I'm sure it would drive people away. But I've been here during a period before where the atmosphere was so bad, it felt like no one wanted to be here. That is far more likely to drive people away, IMO.

Like Ignor says, while trying to locate exactly how they have broken the rules while the person deliberately flaunts them as close to the knuckle as possible, the damage has been done already. It's kind of like saying, "Look, it's clear you aren't interested in being part of the community. You're here to disrupt it. Cut it out."

Say what you like, but it won't take long for staff to abuse this new feature and eventually some users will be driven away. Guaranteed, we just play the waiting game for now.

[Brakeman]

I agree with the new feature as this is a discussion forum that is primarily for atheistic topics. Trollish behavior is difficult to separate from occasional slips and tifs and a more general global view of one's behavior is warranted. I can't imagine it to be difficult to behave on here if one is putting forth any effort.

There is no need to play "what if" for future moderators. If they pollute the board, then we simply move to a new board en mass.

[robvalue]

Bella: I think you're overestimating your prophetic powers there. Whatever decisions the staff make, "some people" may leave because of it. That's unavoidable.

[rexbeccarox]

A ban is literally a click of a button, but Staff here works on quorum. That they've decided to be transparent with the new "rule" should be enough to know that they won't be abusing the power they had even before announcing it, let alone that it only takes one dissenter to shut down a ban in this case.

[MTL]

A ban is literally a click of a button, but Staff here works on quorum. That they've decided to be transparent with the new "rule" should be enough to know that they won't be abusing the power they had even before announcing it, let alone that it only takes one dissenter to shut down a ban in this case.

Yes.  They don't want to drive away users.

They want to keep users from being driven away.

[thesummerqueen]

If staff have the option to permanently ban a member who has not violated any rules, then just chuck the rules book, because the staff have, essentially, just granted themselves the power to bounce anyone at any time for the most nebulous of reasons.

Boru

It's never nebulous. I was on staff here, and I manage my own group. Staff always consults and agonizes over what to do and comes to a consensus.

Usually when a person acts the way that's being described, they are harassing people in one of the most nefarious ways - the kind that can be written off, but wears you down day after day after day and makes people stop showing up. All positivity gets sucked down in their dark hole of gaslighting harassment. Ignore functions don't work.

Technically, staff had the power to ban whoever and make shit up before now. You gonna start distrusting them after a bit of transparency?

A ban is literally a click of a button, but Staff here works on quorum. That they've decided to be transparent with the new "rule" should be enough to know that they won't be abusing the power they had even before announcing it, let alone that it only takes one dissenter to shut down a ban in this case.

Yes.  They don't want to drive away users.

They want to keep users from being driven away.

This. We had people leaving because of that cunt I mentioned.