Rule Change (New Staff Power)
January 12, 2016 at 5:22 pm
(This post was last modified: January 17, 2016 at 9:16 pm by Tiberius.)
This is an announcement to let our members know about a change to the rules which is now in effect. This isn't a new rule or a modification of any current rules, but rather a new staff power. Ordinarily we wouldn't publicize what is basically an internal staff procedure, but in this case we are making an exception in order to be as transparent as possible.
First, here is the new power:
Ok, so before everyone grabs their pitchforks and declares us power-hungry, it's probably a good idea to explain a bit about how the staff works. We take pride in the fact that we do things differently from most other forums on the Internet. Staff are not all-powerful, we are democratic and limited by the rules and our processes. The rules have been reviewed extensively and rewritten multiple times to reduce ambiguity, and when making decisions on whether a rule violation occurs, we take an extremely literal view of them. No one staff member can perform a moderation action alone, other than those that are urgent and obvious (e.g. spam removal). All potential rule violations are discussed (sometimes at length) and voted on.
Recently, we have had a number of exceptional cases where a member was clearly having a negative influence on the forums, not contributing to discussions, being rude, alienating other members, etc, but was not technically violating any rules. Rather than change particular rules and introduce potential subjectivity, we decided that in these exceptional cases, where the staff unanimously agreed that a member did not belong, the staff should have the power to ban them. However, such a power would be unprecedented here, and naturally it makes us uncomfortable. We don't want to be seen as a forum which bans people just because they annoy or bother the staff, that's not who we are. With that in mind, we have added limitations to the new power, specifically that a single dissenting staff member completely nullifies the potential ban. The vote to use the "Nuclear Option" will be open to all staff members over a period of 48 hours, and all staff will be contacted to let them know the vote is taking place.
We hope that these conditions will set everyone's minds at ease. The only reason we feel this power is even necessary is so that people can enjoy the forums without their experiences being ruined by negative people who only come here to disrupt conversations. Luckily, the vast majority of our members, even those who may have totally conflicting opinions, manage to get on well in discussions. As stated previously, this is for truly exceptional cases, and we do not anticipate having to use it very often at all.
Due to discussions in this thread, staff have decided to remove the "Nuclear Option" and replace it with a new rule, which is worded as follows:
Feel free to ask questions in this thread.
- Tiberius
First, here is the new power:
Quote:Nuclear Option
Staff reserve the right to ban any member who is judged to have an overwhelmingly negative influence on the forums as a whole, even if no rules have been technically violated by this member. Staff are required to vote on the ban during a 48 hour time period. A single vote of dissent will prevent the ban. Only unanimous agreement of the staff who vote within the time period will see the ban enforced.
Ok, so before everyone grabs their pitchforks and declares us power-hungry, it's probably a good idea to explain a bit about how the staff works. We take pride in the fact that we do things differently from most other forums on the Internet. Staff are not all-powerful, we are democratic and limited by the rules and our processes. The rules have been reviewed extensively and rewritten multiple times to reduce ambiguity, and when making decisions on whether a rule violation occurs, we take an extremely literal view of them. No one staff member can perform a moderation action alone, other than those that are urgent and obvious (e.g. spam removal). All potential rule violations are discussed (sometimes at length) and voted on.
Recently, we have had a number of exceptional cases where a member was clearly having a negative influence on the forums, not contributing to discussions, being rude, alienating other members, etc, but was not technically violating any rules. Rather than change particular rules and introduce potential subjectivity, we decided that in these exceptional cases, where the staff unanimously agreed that a member did not belong, the staff should have the power to ban them. However, such a power would be unprecedented here, and naturally it makes us uncomfortable. We don't want to be seen as a forum which bans people just because they annoy or bother the staff, that's not who we are. With that in mind, we have added limitations to the new power, specifically that a single dissenting staff member completely nullifies the potential ban. The vote to use the "Nuclear Option" will be open to all staff members over a period of 48 hours, and all staff will be contacted to let them know the vote is taking place.
We hope that these conditions will set everyone's minds at ease. The only reason we feel this power is even necessary is so that people can enjoy the forums without their experiences being ruined by negative people who only come here to disrupt conversations. Luckily, the vast majority of our members, even those who may have totally conflicting opinions, manage to get on well in discussions. As stated previously, this is for truly exceptional cases, and we do not anticipate having to use it very often at all.
Due to discussions in this thread, staff have decided to remove the "Nuclear Option" and replace it with a new rule, which is worded as follows:
Quote:Overwhelmingly Negative Influences
Members are not allowed to engage in any activity which has an overwhelmingly negative influence on the forums as a whole. The purpose of these forums is to promote discussion and debate between people of different belief systems, which all members should try to do in a non-disruptive manner. Whilst there are no points of view that a member can hold which would be considered a negative influence, a member can be a negative influence if their behavior is consistently disruptive and upsetting to active members.
Staff will judge whether a member has an overwhelmingly negative influence on the forums, and will punish that member appropriately. All punishments for violations of this rule will require active staff to vote during a 48 hour time period. A single vote of dissent will prevent punishment from being carried out. Only unanimous agreement of the staff who vote within the time period will see the punishment enforced.
Feel free to ask questions in this thread.
- Tiberius
![[Image: dc52deee8e6b07186c04ff66a45fd204.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i585.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss295%2Faaliyahqin%2Fcat%2Fdc52deee8e6b07186c04ff66a45fd204.jpg)
