Rule Change (New Staff Power)

[thesummerqueen]

Good choice.

We recently had to do this with an incredibly passive-aggressive narcissist in our local group. She destroyed EVERYTHING she touched, while skirting all the rules.

We finally managed to get rid of her. I opened a bottle of scotch to celebrate.

People like that bother staff as much as the membership - not because it's annoying but because we truly care about the mental health of our members, in a forum or IRL.

[*Deidre*]

Think it's a great idea!

[ignoramus]

Oh well, at least EP can stand proud knowing that he's served as a very good example of being a very bad example.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think this is an utter load of useless crap. Users have the option to block members they don't care to deal with - if we don't enable them, then they'll dry up and blow away.

And how - exactly - do staff determine 'a negative influence'? Are there criteria, or just a general sense of 'we dislike this person'?

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

[GrandizerII]

Serious question though:

- is there a MO how a potential nukee can get warned concretely that he or she might become subject to the new procedure before an actual vote and decision needs to take place? With clear rule violations, it seems more obvious that one can issue a warning after an initial violation, and then one can ban on repeat violations. But with this more ineffable criterion, how would that work? There should be a clearly defined "nuke warning" imho.

- Are we talking permanent and/or temp bans here? Will be voted on both, or will the first time always be temp?

Staff will discuss issues with certain members when they arise, and if we feel like a member is becoming a candidate for getting banned like this, we will reach out to them and ask them to consider changing their behavior. If they ignore us or continue their behavior despite our warnings, we will move to a vote on a ban.

That's good to know then.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that this has been elaborated upon already, in thread, and that sufficient explanation has been given as to how conservative staff plans to be with this option.  There will be no chucking the rulebook out. 

That rulebook, however, does not exist to shield people from the mods or admins.  That's not it's purpose.  It exists to shield you, the user, from the sorts misconduct that would lead we, the staff, to enact the option.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Conservative or not, it has been stated that staff now have the ability to ban someone for not breaking any rules.

I'm fully aware of the nature and purpose of the rules, but you miss my point. As you say, the rulebook is there to benefit the users of the Forum. But the common penalty for violating rules is (ultimately) a permanent ban. So, if you can ban people who don't break rules, then there seems no real point in having the rules in the first place.

By and large, the members here are adults (emotionally, if sometimes not legally) who all know how to use the ignore function. It seems pointless to give staff the power to do something the members can do for themselves.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

We've made a commitment to you, as users, that doesn't allow us to point at your ignore function as though it excused us from our duties as mods/admins.  I do understand and appreciate your concern, in principle.  I'll keep it in mind if the option ever arises.

[*Deidre*]

Conservative or not, it has been stated that staff now have the ability to ban someone for not breaking any rules.

I'm fully aware of the nature and purpose of the rules, but you miss my point.  As you say, the rulebook is there to benefit the users of the Forum.  But the common penalty for violating rules is (ultimately) a permanent ban.  So, if you can ban people who don't break rules, then there seems no real point in having the rules in the first place.

By and large, the members here are adults (emotionally, if sometimes not legally) who all know how to use the ignore function.  It seems pointless to give staff the power to do something the members can do for themselves.

Boru

When you have a poster who keeps insulting everyone, in nearly every thread he/she enters...it just brings the forum down, when the person is just left to keep trashing perfectly good topics. It strikes me as this will only be 'enforced' if the person is a chronic problem. The ignore feature only goes so far. lol

[MTL]

Makes sense.

If someone is just flouting the rules, you ban them,

but there are those who enjoy deliberately coming within a hair's breadth of breaking the rules,
stopping just short of it,
to have both the fun of being gratuitously annoying to everyone,
and the intent to create discontent and drive away sincere users,
AND to sort of strut right under the nose of Admin,
that they haven't actually BROKEN any rules.

I knew of a neighborhood cat that did something like that to the dogs in the area.

Eventually the inevitable happened.