Rule Change (New Staff Power)

[robvalue]

Nap: Thanks for accepting. I retract everything I said which was in response to the misreading.

To me, it seems like this is a new rule: deliberately skirting around other rules while being disruptive is against the rules.

I agree that a warning should be given first and a chance to change, from what I understand this will be the case.

Put this way, I suppose it could then be handled in the same way as other rule breakages. But I'm sure the staff have thought of that, and I trust they know what they're doing.

[Iroscato]

Disagreeing with a new rule is one thing.

"It won't take long for staff to abuse this new feature" is quite another.

How about if Staff started insinuating that it won't take long for you to spam the boards with porn, based on absolutely nothing at all? How would that sit with you?

I keep fucking trying but there is some sort of filter up. Trust me, you haven't lived until you've seen two midgets banging inside a donkey, I wish only to educate.

[Iroscato]

Also, I think the staff here are excellent, without exception.

[SteelCurtain]

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.

Wow. I'm glad you have such a solid grasp of how staff does things here, and how corrupt we are, just waiting for an opportunity to abuse a feature we agonized over creating in the first place. You really pegged us, all in just nine days!

No worries. Just to clarify:  For me (can't speak for anyone else), the problem is if there is a member who is categorically not breaking any rules, but is just a complete arsehole, are we okay with giving staff the option of banning them (regardless of whether this option is ever used)? And are we okay for the staff to decide (regardless of how unanimously) for us as a membership who we deem as such arseholes?

Napo, you know as well as I do that this would never happen without an overwhelming impetus from the forum-at-large. You know how many reports staff gets about members that are making the forum uncomfortable. How many of those reports we have to vote "no action" because no rules have been broken. I said it in the Staff Thread, I'll say it here: in the entire time I've been on staff, I would have given my +1 on the nuclear option to just one member. DFDM.

It just opens a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened in my humble opinion when we can already collar these 'arseholes' for actual rule violations. If someone is skirting the rules so much and the disruption is so obvious, why can we not simply ban them for that? We have done so in the past. 

I just see this whole thing as creating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and in the process it seems to undermine the rules themselves by saying they don't actually matter because we can ban you even when you aren't breaking the rules.

The problem actually does exist. Otherwise, we never would have discussed an option to correct it. We have, as a staff, felt like we are letting the forum down when we can't do anything about people who routinely make this a less desirable place to be because of their attitude and their harassment of new people and long standing members. The problem exists because these people aren't breaking any actual rules. They are, however, doing everything the rules are there to prevent from happening, which is making this place a nice place to be for the rest of the members.

I think you know how ridiculously conservative staff is concerning using a ban. There is a reason Randy Carson lasted for 6 months here. That is the atmosphere that we foster among staff, and the one that Tiberius maintains.

[account_inactive]

Wow. I'm glad you have such a solid grasp of how staff does things here, and how corrupt we are, just waiting for an opportunity to abuse a feature we agonized over creating in the first place. You really pegged us, all in just nine days!

I'll stay out of this discussion.

[Napoléon]

Napo, you know as well as I do that this would never happen without an overwhelming impetus from the forum-at-large. You know how many reports staff gets about members that are making the forum uncomfortable. How many of those reports we have to vote "no action" because no rules have been broken. I said it in the Staff Thread, I'll say it here: in the entire time I've been on staff, I would have given my +1 on the nuclear option to just one member. DFDM.

Of course I do. Which is exactly why I don't understand this 'new power'. Within the powers you already have, you can ban such members you mention. Where this doesn't seem to make sense to me, and undermines the existing rules, is that you are now saying you can ban members who are not breaking any rules. Just in general principle I disagree with that.

I may not disagree with banning a specific member, in a given scenario, but it's how it's done and how it's justified that makes a world of difference in my view.

You're right in that some members make this place negative and get away with shit they shouldn't. But the answer in my mind is not to say we can now ban members who aren't breaking any rules. Why not simply amend the existing ones. I can get on board with the latter, but you can see how the former seems like a complete circumvention of the supposed principles we're all encouraged to follow?

It's not lost on me that these two things would achieve the same goal, but it's for precisely this reason I don't see the point in it.

[Napoléon]

Put this way, I suppose it could then be handled in the same way as other rule breakages. But I'm sure the staff have thought of that, and I trust they know what they're doing.

You may well be right but I've not seen any real reason as to why we can't ban such people with the existing (or even amended) rules.

Disregarding the rules and saying it doesn't actually matter if you've broken them or not is the message that staff are ultimately sending out, whether they like it or not and whether it is actually ever done or not.

Maybe I'm wrong in taking it that way, but if you'll forgive my arrogance I really don't think I am.

[Napoléon]

To me, it seems like this is a new rule: deliberately skirting around other rules while being disruptive is against the rules.

I agree that a warning should be given first and a chance to change, from what I understand this will be the case.

Then why not just say it is that, instead of calling it some dramatic thing like 'the nuclear option' and giving the impression that members can be banned for simply being cunts, even if they haven't broken the rules.

Just saying.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

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.

Through which process is it

judged to have an overwhelmingly negative influence on the forums as a whole

.
Does this mean that any opinion a user might have, a user like me, which can strike negative emotions in the hearts of other users should be avoided?

[SteelCurtain]

Napo, you know as well as I do that this would never happen without an overwhelming impetus from the forum-at-large. You know how many reports staff gets about members that are making the forum uncomfortable. How many of those reports we have to vote "no action" because no rules have been broken. I said it in the Staff Thread, I'll say it here: in the entire time I've been on staff, I would have given my +1 on the nuclear option to just one member. DFDM.

Of course I do. Which is exactly why I don't understand this 'new power'. Within the powers you already have, you can ban such members you mention. Where this doesn't seem to make sense to me, and undermines the existing rules, is that you are now saying you can ban members who are not breaking any rules. Just in general principle I disagree with that.

I may not disagree with banning a specific member, in a given scenario, but it's how it's done and how it's justified that makes a world of difference in my view.

You're right in that some members make this place negative and get away with shit they shouldn't. But the answer in my mind is not to say we can now ban members who aren't breaking any rules. Why not simply amend the existing ones. I can get on board with the latter, but you can see how the former seems like a complete circumvention of the supposed principles we're all encouraged to follow?

It's not lost on me that these two things would achieve the same goal, but it's for precisely this reason I don't see the point in it.

We tried amending the existing ones. It's the god of the gaps. You fill one gap, and now you've got two gaps instead of one.

I think you're taking "not breaking any rules" to an extreme that is not meant by the context. This doesn't mean "behaving."

We're taking someone who is consistently circumventing the very thing the rules are there to protect and removing them. In other words, the may not be breaking the letter of the law, but they are undeniably flaunting the spirit of the law.