Rule Change (New Staff Power)

[robvalue]

Now they can declare war with the threat of an actual fake nuke, rather than a fake fake one. And they can fill in a form to say so.

[Cyberman]

Precisely! That's what administration is all about!

Now, once we get the forms sorted out in quadrotriplicate, we have to kill you for leaking privileged information. Nothing personal; just dotting the 't's and crossing the 'i's, you know how it is.

[Longhorn]

Now, once we get the forms sorted out in quadrotriplicate, we have to kill you for leaking privileged information.

Stay outta my lane

[robvalue]

Oh whoops! I thought I was posting on the super secret part of the forum.

Err, whoops!?

[emjay]

Yeah you're right, it's not even an issue in reality but I'm a stickler for shit like this. I'm not going to lose sleep over it but I do disagree with the whole notion of this nuclear option in principle especially when I honestly think it's irrelevant to declare it a thing. People have already essentially admitted as much by saying it will probably never be used and the staff already have such powers anyway.

So I'm sitting here, still wondering, even after all the justification, thinking "why"?

I think there is a benefit to it being declared from that perspective; to act as a deterrent/credible threat against those who knowingly and/or deliberately skirt the rules as a thing. You could never know for sure if someone was doing that but if there was someone who appears to be fully aware of the rules, fully aware that they're not breaking any of them technically, fully aware of the integrity of the staff in enforcing those rules, and reminding people of the fact/gloating every chance they get and/or trying to use those same rules that they are skirting against other people, then declaring this rule could pull the rug out from under them and let them know that being as big a pain in the arse as possible within the rules was not an option... get rid of the sense of safety/invincibility that such people have and maybe work where any number of smaller rules would always fail because of the rule-skirter's ability/tendency to be pedantic about the letter of the law.

[Cyberman]

Oh whoops! I thought I was posting on the super secret part of the forum.

Err, whoops!?

You are; but I have red powers, remember. You seriously think you can hide from me? I can see what you dream, never mind post.

[Napoléon]

I think there is a benefit to it being declared from that perspective; to act as a deterrent/credible threat against those who knowingly and/or deliberately skirt the rules as a thing. You could never know for sure if someone was doing that but if there was someone who appears to be fully aware of the rules, fully aware that they're not breaking any of them technically, fully aware of the integrity of the staff in enforcing those rules, and reminding people of the fact/gloating every chance they get and/or trying to use those same rules that they are skirting against other people, then declaring this rule could pull the rug out from under them and let them know that being as big a pain in the arse as possible within the rules was not at option... get rid of the sense of safety/invincibility that such people have and maybe work where any number of smaller rules would always fail because of the rule-skirter's ability/tendency to be pedantic about the letter of the law.

Tiberius has already acknowledged that it's difficult often times to determine intent. Is someone deliberately being an ass, or are they not. It's irrelevant, and the creation of this option makes it no easier IMO nor does it affect those who think they can get away with skirting the rules.

[robvalue]

I agree with emjay here, if you take your average vaugely intelligent insecure attention seeking narcissist (atheist for short) then getting banned is going to foil their long term plans. So being made aware there is such a rule specifically for them might make them stop and think. It also acts as fair warning should they ignore the rule.

Someone who isn't intending to fuck everyone around would hopefully react positively to constructive criticism, and to try to alter their behaviour.

[Cyberman]

The criterion is the amount of disruption caused to the forum as a whole. I gave the example of the infamous Troy Brooks from "Biblocality", a guy who even Matt Slick thinks is irritating. Some of us remember having the pleasure of his company at the original JesusNeverExisted forum, in which he responded to every single reply with "I'm glad you can't find anything wrong with my proof" and persistently creamed his panties over telling everyone how they will burn in hell. I mean this guy took it to the most extreme of extremes. In the end, the forum was infected so badly with thread after thread twisted to be all about him alone, the staff - after a lot of agonising - felt they had no choice but to make him the subject of the forum's first and only non-spam ban. It didn't slow him down. Sock after sock appeared like a deranged dry cleaning explosion.

As far as I am concerned, that's the level of disruption we're talking about here, that would warrant the nuclear option.

[emjay]

I think there is a benefit to it being declared from that perspective; to act as a deterrent/credible threat against those who knowingly and/or deliberately skirt the rules as a thing. You could never know for sure if someone was doing that but if there was someone who appears to be fully aware of the rules, fully aware that they're not breaking any of them technically, fully aware of the integrity of the staff in enforcing those rules, and reminding people of the fact/gloating every chance they get and/or trying to use those same rules that they are skirting against other people, then declaring this rule could pull the rug out from under them and let them know that being as big a pain in the arse as possible within the rules was not at option... get rid of the sense of safety/invincibility that such people have and maybe work where any number of smaller rules would always fail because of the rule-skirter's ability/tendency to be pedantic about the letter of the law.

Tiberius has already acknowledged that it's difficult often times to determine intent. Is someone deliberately being an ass, or are they not. It's irrelevant, and the creation of this option makes it no easier IMO nor does it affect those who think they can get away with skirting the rules.

I really think it will make a difference to the behaviour of certain people, whether the behaviour is deliberate or just an incidental side effect of their nature. Just knowing that rule's there will end the pedantic game of 'playing it by the rulebook'. I've seen theists do it and others more recently. And though it may not work against all personality types, it might against these sorts of people.