Rule Change (New Staff Power)

[Joods]

An idea I've seen used on another forum, is when someone is doing things to endlessly disrupt a forum but hasn't exactly broken rules per se, the person is only allowed to post in one subforum, and it's usually a subforum that acts as a 'time out' for problem members. There's a time limit, a few weeks, a month, etc. Once that time is up, the person is allowed to post back in the open forum, and then if they eff up again...they're banned forevah. The other members can interact with the person whilst they're in this other subforum, and so can the person, but that's the only place they can interact until they have 'served their time.' Just a thought, it seems to work well. Kind of like having cyber-gallows. 

That was the point of Thumps sub forum in another group he was in. Two pages back, it's mentioned.

[*Deidre*]

An idea I've seen used on another forum, is when someone is doing things to endlessly disrupt a forum but hasn't exactly broken rules per se, the person is only allowed to post in one subforum, and it's usually a subforum that acts as a 'time out' for problem members. There's a time limit, a few weeks, a month, etc. Once that time is up, the person is allowed to post back in the open forum, and then if they eff up again...they're banned forevah. The other members can interact with the person whilst they're in this other subforum, and so can the person, but that's the only place they can interact until they have 'served their time.' Just a thought, it seems to work well. Kind of like having cyber-gallows. 

That was the point of Thumps sub forum in another group he was in. Two pages back, it's mentioned.

lol I'll have to go back and see. 

Yea, definitely don't think it's the best choice, but mentioned it because I've seen that type of thing work both positively and negatively, but at the end of the day, maybe someone just needs a temp bad to learn lessons, you know? 

I was a mod for a short time on a religious forum, and honestly didn't like it. I didn't feel like I could just be me, but that people may have treated me differently as a mod. That site too had a strict policy of needing three mod votes based on certain 'reports' that would come in of members' complaints. So, many people might think that mods of forums just whimsically come about their decisions, but it takes a lot to ban someone or even consider it. Which is a good thing, otherwise, there would be an abuse of 'power.' My hat is off to the mods here, and elsewhere, it's not an easy job, sometimes. 

[SteelCurtain]

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.

Seeing as this has never even come close to happening in my time on staff, nor anything remotely like it, I don't think you're on the mark here.

[Longhorn]

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.

Oh wow. What makes you have such a low opinion of the staff? This doesn't sound remotely close or even plausible. Come on.

It's already been said but I find it quite strange that this new power is announced specifically in the interest of clarity and fairness and yet people start accusing staff of being corrupted.

[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.

Oh wow. What makes you have such a low opinion of the staff? This doesn't sound remotely close or even plausible. Come on.

It's already been said but I find it quite strange that this new power is announced specifically in the interest of clarity and fairness and yet people start accusing staff of being corrupted.

1. Never said that I had a low opinion of staff

2. Only said there would be a possibility of these things happening, which there is.

3. Never said this would happen, or even remotely said there was a high probability of it happening. I was simply pointing out that it has some flaws that could allow things like this to happen, not that it will allow things like this to happen.

4. Never said staff was corrupt.

5. Stop making assumptions and getting up in arms for no reason about what your own imagination conjured up as representing what I said, when in reality it's no where near it.

6. Sincerely, fuck off.

[Longhorn]

I'm not getting up in arms. I'm trying to not come off negative. Sorry. I know I do a poor job of it lately.

Maybe I misread you, but your initial post sounded like you were insinuating that the staff is biased and unfair. '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', especially.

If that was not your intent then my apologies, honest mistake. Your post seemed to say that to me.

[The Valkyrie]

My minimum bribe level is a turnip.

But if you want me to vote specifically to have someone banned it will cost you $50 and a bag of m&ms...

... and a turnip.

[SteelCurtain]

Oh wow. What makes you have such a low opinion of the staff? This doesn't sound remotely close or even plausible. Come on.

It's already been said but I find it quite strange that this new power is announced specifically in the interest of clarity and fairness and yet people start accusing staff of being corrupted.

1. Never said that I had a low opinion of staff

Your entire post belies that. If you think that staff would or does engage in bullying and coercion, that is by definition a low opinion of the staff.

2. Only said there would be a possibility of these things happening, which there is.

There is also a possibility of me hitting the 'Purge Spammer' button on the bottom of every single post from every non staff member. With two clicks, I could wipe out any member and every post they ever posted. Any staff member could do that at any time. Wonder why it hasn't happened yet?

3. Never said this would happen, or even remotely said there was a high probability of it happening. I was simply pointing out that it has some flaws that could allow things like this to happen, not that it will allow things like this to happen.

What flaws does this power have that any other power doesn't? Are the other staff powers less susceptible to coercion or bullying or favor trading?

4. Never said staff was corrupt.

Then what is the problem? If you're not suggesting staff has some corruption, then how could you "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." Who on staff could you see doing something like that?

5. Stop making assumptions and getting up in arms for no reason about what your own imagination conjured up as representing what I said, when in reality it's no where near it.

Those are your words, no? Please tell me how your words mean something different than what they mean.

[ignoramus]

My minimum bribe level is a turnip.

But if you want me to vote specifically to have someone banned it will cost you $50 and a bag of m&ms...

... and a turnip.

Only if I get to insert the turnip myself.
You know guys, if one Aussie or Kiwi is nuked, we all walk. That's the ANZAC spirit in us.

[Jackalope]

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.

I get that but it's my belief that putting up impediments to posting or creating threads has a chilling effect on new members. I don't think any of us want that.

It's certainly something that's possible, but in my experience, complicated configurations only lead to confusion.