Rule Change (New Staff Power)

[SteelCurtain]

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?

Absolutely not. This isn't a measure to make the forum homogenous.

It's a measure to prevent a member from going into every thread and blowing it up, exploding at the slightest challenge, making every thread about themselves, and overall making it their job to make the forums miserable.

[Tiberius]

I don't have time to respond to the points raised here at the moment (it's getting late) but I will respond to the assertion that we could just ban people under the "trolling" rule.

Firstly, go read the rule. It's very clear that posts have to be "deliberately provocative". The problem we run into as staff is whether someone is being deliberately provocative (i.e. they made the post for the specific purpose of upsetting someone) or whether they are just an asshole with little to no social skills. We argue over it every single time it comes up. Like I said, we take the rules very literally. In the past we've aired on the side of caution, and honestly, it's hard to detect a troll unless they come out and admit it. It's easy for someone to claim they aren't being a troll and who are we to say they are?

So therein lies the problem. At the same time, we debated having a "don't be a dick" rule but decided against it, simply because it's far too subjective and it would apply to almost every member here at some point.

The solution was to create the new power, put severe limitations on it, and use it in exceptional circumstances. We'd try to make it more specific, but we'd likely run into the same problems as before. The point of the new power is to detect negative behavior that doesn't fit with the purpose of the forums (which is to promote good discussion between people of different beliefs) and punish those who exhibit it.

Nobody has to tread on eggshells. If you are here for discussion and debate, we love having you here, even if we personally disagree with you. If you are here to cause havoc and piss our members off, you will be contacted and told to change your behavior or get banned.

As with all bans, you can appeal if you feel the decision was unjust.

[robvalue]

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?

Yes, get out

Nah man. If they banned you for what you say, then I'd be worried. I think this is much more to do with behaviour and attempts to deliberately disrupt the forum as a whole.

I'm not qualified to comment on the exact procedures, but I can only say I have confidence in the staff. If a "not breaking rules but willfully disrupting" option is not viable as Steel has said, I can fully understand the need for an alternative.

If there was to be no warning issued at all before a permanent ban, I would be concerned. But that's just my opinion.

They have said it can be a temporary ban, so this could always be used to stop the whole forum being ruined due to difficulties with red tape and give the person a chance to change. I imagine the situation would have to be pretty extreme before they instabanned someone.

[Catholic_Lady]

Honestly, I think keeping a little bit of drama around here can be kind of entertaining. I don't like it when people are being nasty to each other, or when a bunch of people are being mean to one person like a mob... but I don't get upset by one crazy member acting obnoxious on the forum lol.

Anyway, it's just mho. I will support whatever ya'll decide to do.

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

Staff will ultimately decide on whether a temporary or permanent ban is required, which is why we didn't specify which type. If we feel a member would benefit from a week ban, we will give them that. If we feel that they nothing is going to change their behavior, and they haven't given us any reason to believe they will, we will use a permanent ban.

Hmm wonder who this person is lol.

*coughepcough*

[Clueless Morgan]

I think it would be a good idea if the member being considered under this rule was informed of it before it took effect and given a period of time to change their behaviour... with perhaps another vote afterwards. That way it would be responsibility of the member in question whether they got banned, because if they genuinely tried to change, the second vote would probably reflect it, and it would also feel a lot fairer for them.

I'm not a staff member but I imagine that if a person is being disruptive enough to warrant the consideration of the nuclear option by the staff that they have probably already had some warnings or interactions with the staff indicating that such an action is a possibility if their behavior doesn't change.

The staff here are not a bunch of lawless renegades out to ban everyone they don't like.

[account_inactive]

Just so everyone knows, I issued a private apology to the moderators involved for my terrible conduct in this thread.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

A member can use ignore all he wants, but when disruptive behavior that dances artfully between the rules cause entire threads to be shat upon by one member, the ignore feature does no good, and at that point the only option is to ignore the thread, and that punishes the user who might wish to read, learn, and contribute.

I don't think one member should be able to drop the blade on an entire thread, or threads as happened recently.

[robvalue]

Just so everyone knows, I issued a private apology to the moderators involved for my terrible conduct in this thread.

Good for you

I hope you stay and become part of the community. It sounds like prior experiences may have made you pessimistic.

[Jenny A]

Question: Would this option be susceptible to member reporting, or will it only be an option brought out by Staff in their thread?

Good question.

It will be an internal staff discussion. The report feature is there to report rule violations. We don't want reports for non-violations where members are suggesting that we invoke the Nuclear Option. That would be bad, I think.

I agree, but it's hard to imagine any person that disruptive who isn't reported for other things with some frequency.