Rule Change (New Staff Power)

[KevinM1]

I don't know why intent necessarily matters. The effects of the hypothetical person's actions on the rest of the community should be all that matters, IMO. Most people slash and burn intentionally, but some don't. It's really irrelevant if the resulting carnage left in their wake is the same.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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"?

We recently had two members who would shit up threads with ugliness that did not break any rules but who regularly directed their posting at turning any thread they participated in to a thread about themselves. But the insults they meted out, and the breast-beating they engaged in, and the consistent and clearly deliberate derailing of threads, meant that they themselves were able to nuke any thread they chose. And it didn't fall under the rubric of trolling, as their posts contained enough content to provide them a fig leaf against that rule.

Ignoring them doesn't work because someone will always quote them in reply, and thus the thread gets sidetracked and ruint. I was one of those respondents with the last one, and I won't repeat that behavior again -- but you can rest assured someone will, to the detriment of the discussion.

[robvalue]

There's someone else I won't name, who used to turn up in almost every thread and used the same logical fallacy to try and make it a point about religion and atheists being wrong, even if the thread was non-religious. This really got to me, to the point where so many threads were sidetracked by his nonsense it was really hard to have a proper conversation at all. The staff probably have an idea who I'm talking about. I think that kind of shit would have warranted a warning for not actually breaking rules, but continually disrupting with irrelevancies.

[Tiberius]

Ignoring them doesn't work because someone will always quote them in reply, and thus the thread gets sidetracked and ruint. I was one of those respondents with the last one, and I won't repeat that behavior again -- but you can rest assured someone will, to the detriment of the discussion.

As people have pointed out recently, the ignore feature is not perfect, it doesn't work in certain parts of the forum, it doesn't completely hide posts, and it doesn't hide threads at all.

Asking people to use the ignore feature rather than just banning the user seems pretty pointless to me. Honestly, I'd rather save space in the database by not having a member make posts which are being ignored by everyone.

[The Valkyrie]

I'd just like to put in that this is one of the few forums I've encountered where new rules like this are announced and then open for discussion by everyone. I think this is an indication of how well the board is run and the openness of the admin.

[Napoléon]

But the insults they meted out, and the breast-beating they engaged in, and the consistent and clearly deliberate derailing of threads... And it didn't fall under the rubric of trolling

I'm sorry, but if it's as obvious and as disruptive as you reckon, then it absolutely does fall under the rubric of trolling and the staff can absolutely determine that.

I was on staff, I know for a fact we've banned members in the past (after much deliberation to be sure), for exactly the things you describe, without the need of some 'nuclear option' that completely undermines the existing rules.

The staff have said they couldn't amend the existing rules? Why? Just put a disclaimer in there that those deemed to not be following or flagrantly flouting the 'spirit of the rules' can be banned, and treated as rule breakers. The whole notion of saying "we can ban people who follow the rules", surely, undermines the rules in the first place?

[Angrboda]

I don't have any strong feelings on the rule change, but several thoughts have occurred to me that I wonder about.

First, I wonder if the rule might be better if it specified types of behavior / effects that might be subject to the rule. I recognize that this is a catch all rule and is designed to pick up where such lists fail, but without exemplars, it does sound more arbitrary than it need be. I suppose given the choice between catchall rules and letting some behaviors slip through the cracks, I'm of a divided opinion. Rule 1 was an example of a catchall rule that seems to have been abandoned. While it was comforting to see problem users dealt with, there also seemed to be an unusual rise in the number of bannings. I think given a choice, I would prefer an environment in which people work through such problems via social means, rather than staff action.

The second question which comes to mind is what kind of impression reading words like "Nuclear Option" and catchall rules as broad as this might have on new users. While I understand the wording is a product of forum and staff culture, I wonder if it could be worded in such a way as to be more noob friendly. I realize I'm an odd bird, but one of the first things I do when approaching a new forum is read the rules; in that context, the wording might be somewhat discouraging of new members.

My third question, not well thought out is whether it needs to be so user-centric. I can imagine a "court of last resort" rule which basically that the staff reserves the right to take actions not explicitly outlined in the rules under unanimous consent of the staff (or something to that effect). I seem to recall the rules having such catchall clauses in the past, and am unsure why this rule has to be so specific about user disruption. (And yes I realize this is at odds with the first point; that's the nature of these kind of rules.)

Another random thought is whether or not the rule could be amended to include / replaced by a rule giving "official warnings" for loosely defined "forum disruption". That might add some granularity to the process which otherwise seems somewhat all or nothing.

And I'm just rambling now, so I'll end here.

[Whateverist]

Yabbut, yabbut, yabbut. Just do it. I'll bet it either goes unused or else we're all grateful as can be to see the uber-troll nuked.

[Napoléon]

I'll bet it either goes unused or else we're all grateful as can be to see the uber-troll nuked.

Not the point.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I actually agree with Napo, he's making some sense on the matter.