Rule Change (New Staff Power)

[robvalue]

Hear hear.

It seems most people approve this change. The staff are volunteers who get no pay and the forum wouldn't work without them. I've seen them be nothing but excellent since I've got here, so I don't understand this huge lack of confidence in them. If they were that bad, what is anyone still doing here?

[account_inactive]

You know what? I've had it with being maligned just for doing this job. If this is going to be the way people react to a Staff option that will never affect them nor which Staff hope will ever need to use except in the most extreme of situations (which I specifically pointed out to Tibs during discussions), then I fucking quit.

I like you personally and encourage you not to quit, but hey, it's your decision.

[thesummerqueen]

You said the staff could ban anyone they don't like.

I'm okay with them not liking someone like EP. Why? Because they didn't dislike him for being different. They disliked him for being a complete and utter twatwaffle who insulted other members constantly and then tried to pretend he didn't do the things he did.

If that's "banning those they don't like" then fuckin' swing that hammer, assholes, I'm right behind you.

[Joods]

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

Here's the thing, the rule has been thoroughly explained. As with anything in life, it is impossible for staff (who completely volunteer their time and who don't get paid), to keep 100% of the people happy 100% of the time. Someone at some point is going to disagree. And that's okay. The idea is with this rule, to keep out the offender who literally shits on every single thread they post in, contributes zero quality and in general, is of such a disturbance that anyone with two brain cells to rub together, can clearly see the upset said person causes. ONE vote of opposition from a fellow staff member keeps the ban from happening.

I am quite sure that the staff discussed this extensively before setting this rule in place. Not everyone who joins this forum is going to agree with it, but honestly, it is about time such a rule was added.

We don't have to like it. We don't have to agree with it. But we also don't have to stay here if we don't. No one is forcing anyone to keep posting or to keep coming back to this website to contribute. Those that do, understand that they come here of their own free will and are expected to behave maturely and engage with others who are expected to do the same.

I like this new rule. I understand though, that not everyone will follow suit and agree.

[ignoramus]

If Stimbo is silly enough to be affected in the slightest by what a noob says or thinks, maybe?

[Cyberman]

The question was asked how the Staff will determine a negative influence on the forum. I suggest for whomsoever needs to wield the power the following as an example.

https://carm.org/troy-brooks

Basically the kind of negative influence that even Matt Slick thinks is a negative influence.

And that is all I am going to say about this. I'm outta here.

[robvalue]

As has also been noted, the rule could have been created and used without telling us. I don't see how being honest with us is creating less confidence.

I'm surprised at some people not just worrying about the staff being abusive, but just telling them they will be. You must already think they are abusive, if that is the case.

[Napoléon]

You said the staff could ban anyone they don't like.

I'm okay with them not liking someone like EP. Why? Because they didn't dislike him for being different. They disliked him for being a complete and utter twatwaffle who insulted other members constantly and then tried to pretend he didn't do the things he did.

If that's "banning those they don't like" then fuckin' swing that hammer, assholes, I'm right behind you.

You're missing the point.

I agree, ban members we don't like. But when you can ban them for being an utter twat the entire time then surely they are banable for rule breakages already that come under trolling and such like. Rules that already exist, instead of creating an option to basically circumvent the process we already have in place.

I just don't see why it's necessary personally. If staff or anyone else wants to take this and misrepresent it as though I'm knocking the job they do then get all uppity about it, whatevs.

I've said enough so carry on I guess. Just don't see why anyone who might have genuine criticism is bashed down for saying they do and treated as though they don't appreciate the job staff does. Hell it doesn't even seem like people are taking the criticism/questioning onboard at all, not after the response I've just got.

If staff didn't want outside input why did Tib make this thread.

[Athene]

You know what? I've had it with being maligned just for doing this job. If this is going to be the way people react to a Staff option that will never affect them nor which Staff hope will ever need to use except in the most extreme of situations (which I specifically pointed out to Tibs during discussions), then I fucking quit.

I hope not.

It's clear that the vast majority of the forum members favor this new measure. That means they have trust and confidence in the Staff, and by extension, you.

[robvalue]

I'm not bashing anyone, I'm disagreeing.