RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
January 13, 2016 at 7:40 pm
(This post was last modified: January 13, 2016 at 7:41 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: January 3, 2025, 2:01 pm
Thread Rating:
Rule Change (New Staff Power)
|
RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
January 13, 2016 at 7:46 pm
(This post was last modified: January 13, 2016 at 7:47 pm by *Deidre*.)
(January 13, 2016 at 7:38 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:(January 13, 2016 at 7:28 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: No, it's like a playpen for the problem person, and that person can still talk to others, etc. Without the harsh penalty of being banned, if they haven't broken any actual rules, per se. But, they can't pm anyone or start new threads. They are confined to the one subforum, and it's almost like an ongoing chat area for the person and others. It usually turns into a free for all, for those who have been upset or offended by the offending party, and the offending party. Actually, what ends up happening is people just fight with the person, and the person can be whatever they like there. That's just it...they can be a jerk in that subforum, just not permitted to be that way out in the open. Once they are let back into the open forum, they need to curb their behaviors, or they're gone. It's not reform, it's revenge for the offended parties. lol I don't really partake in all that, I'm not one to call people names and so on. I feel that if someone is chronically derailing threads with their crappy behavior, I tend to just ignore the person. Actually ignoring the person, not using the ignore feature. (January 13, 2016 at 7:46 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: Actually, what ends up happening is people just fight with the person, and the person can be whatever they like there. That's just it...they can be a jerk in that subforum, just not permitted to be that way out in the open. Once they are let back into the open forum, they need to curb their behaviors, or they're gone. It's not reform, it's revenge for the offended parties. lol I don't really partake in all that, I'm not one to call people names and so on. I feel that if someone is chronically derailing threads with their crappy behavior, I tend to just ignore the person. Actually ignoring the person, not using the ignore feature. We had something like that. It was humiliating for the "jerk" and only served to encourage them to act out, and for the rest of the membership to taunt them. I can't speak for the rest of the staff, but that certainly isn't the sort of environment I want to foster here. We got rid of it for very good reasons. I highly doubt any of the current admins would support bringing it back, and I'm certain that a majority wouldn't.
I definitely wouldn't.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
I'm not a red, but I wouldn't support what amounts to middle school bullying.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<--- (January 13, 2016 at 8:02 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:(January 13, 2016 at 7:46 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: Actually, what ends up happening is people just fight with the person, and the person can be whatever they like there. That's just it...they can be a jerk in that subforum, just not permitted to be that way out in the open. Once they are let back into the open forum, they need to curb their behaviors, or they're gone. It's not reform, it's revenge for the offended parties. lol I don't really partake in all that, I'm not one to call people names and so on. I feel that if someone is chronically derailing threads with their crappy behavior, I tend to just ignore the person. Actually ignoring the person, not using the ignore feature. Yea, I'm of the opinion, to just ban people who join for the intent to disrupt a forum, and those 'areas' tend to draw more negative attention. I have never partaken, but I've seen it work out either way...the person stops and is rehabilitated or the area just serves as an eye sore, which drags a forum down. I think if someone joins a forum with the main intent to disrupt it, or degrade it...by insulting 90% of the members, they should just be banned. Another option is they need 'x' amount of posts in a particular section before they can create new threads on their own. That to me has always been a prudent idea with newbies to forums.
It's only bullying when they can't fight back or defend themselves. I can't recall anyone that ever met that criterion.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(January 13, 2016 at 8:11 pm)*Deidre* Wrote:(January 13, 2016 at 8:09 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I'm not a red, but I wouldn't support what amounts to middle school bullying. Min is pushing, what, 90? Not middle school at all...
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<--- RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
January 14, 2016 at 12:36 am
(This post was last modified: January 14, 2016 at 12:37 am by Heat.)
Seems like a good idea in theory but a bad idea in reality.
I can see staff getting mad at each other for possibly not voting yes, because of their own personal opinions, or staff possibly trying to coerce each other in to voting to pass it. Even in a perfect world where the rule is acted upon exactly as stated there is still a large opportunity for it to be abused in small or large scale, and to that point, any amount that it can be abused even if it's simply a staff member coercing someone to change votes/agree with them, is unfair in my opinion, given the fact that they are already being banned without breaking any rules. Which is better:
To die with ignorance, or to live with intelligence?
Truth doesn't accommodate to personal opinions.
The choice is yours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is God and there is man, it's only a matter of who created whom
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The more questions you ask, the more you realize that disagreement is inevitable, and communication of this disagreement, irrelevant.
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)