Rule Change (New Staff Power)

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

TBH, this thread shouldn't have been made in the first place. Us users that haven't been in the position of the staff's don't exactly know how good they are. If they really are as good as they say then opening a thread like this would've only resulted in either drama or an irrational fear in the minds of users with unpopular views.

I wonder what the purpose was to opening a thread like this?
It's important to have diversity in a forum, users with unpopular views are part of this diversity, without a diverse member list a forum will eventually get bland and tasteless. Perhaps it would've been better to not create such a thread at all. If someone is purposefully ruining the experience of other users then give them 3 warnings before banning them, all this can be done without a dramatic name like "Nuclear option" ... Perhaps a thread with content that says "We care about the experience of users and won't tolerate someone purposefully ruining it. We will issue 3 warnings before banning you. If you think the warnings were not justified, report the issue." would've worked better really, I think. Just saying..

[Losty]

TBH, this thread shouldn't have been made in the first place. Us users that haven't been in the position of the staff's don't exactly know how good they are. If they really are as good as they say then opening a thread like this would've only resulted in either drama or an irrational fear in the minds of users with unpopular views.

I wonder what the purpose was to opening a thread like this?
It's important to have diversity in a forum, users with unpopular views are part of this diversity, without a diverse member list a forum will eventually get bland and tasteless. Perhaps it would've been better to not create such a thread at all. If someone is purposefully ruining the experience of other users then give them 3 warnings before banning them, all this can be done without a dramatic name like "Nuclear option" ... Perhaps a thread with content that says "We care about the experience of users and won't tolerate someone purposefully ruining it. We will issue 3 warnings before banning you. If you think the warnings were not justified, report the issue." would've worked better really, I think. Just saying..

Seems like the thread was opened in the name of transparency. I'm glad it was opened. If you're now worried about being banned unexpectedly, voice your concerns and ask questions until you feel better.

[account_inactive]

TBH, this thread shouldn't have been made in the first place. Us users that haven't been in the position of the staff's don't exactly know how good they are. If they really are as good as they say then opening a thread like this would've only resulted in either drama or an irrational fear in the minds of users with unpopular views.

I wonder what the purpose was to opening a thread like this?
It's important to have diversity in a forum, users with unpopular views are part of this diversity, without a diverse member list a forum will eventually get bland and tasteless. Perhaps it would've been better to not create such a thread at all. If someone is purposefully ruining the experience of other users then give them 3 warnings before banning them, all this can be done without a dramatic name like "Nuclear option" ... Perhaps a thread with content that says "We care about the experience of users and won't tolerate someone purposefully ruining it. We will issue 3 warnings before banning you. If you think the warnings were not justified, report the issue." would've worked better really, I think. Just saying..

Regardless of what your views are on the new feature, you've really got to give it to staff on here for being so transparent.

[MTL]

I was She-Ra for Hallowe'en, once.

My pink cape was made from a plastic shower curtain.

And the following year, I was Jem,
and my dress was cut from the same shower curtain.

FYI.

[The Valkyrie]

TBH, this thread shouldn't have been made in the first place. Us users that haven't been in the position of the staff's don't exactly know how good they are. If they really are as good as they say then opening a thread like this would've only resulted in either drama or an irrational fear in the minds of users with unpopular views.

I wonder what the purpose was to opening a thread like this?
It's important to have diversity in a forum, users with unpopular views are part of this diversity, without a diverse member list a forum will eventually get bland and tasteless. Perhaps it would've been better to not create such a thread at all. If someone is purposefully ruining the experience of other users then give them 3 warnings before banning them, all this can be done without a dramatic name like "Nuclear option" ... Perhaps a thread with content that says "We care about the experience of users and won't tolerate someone purposefully ruining it. We will issue 3 warnings before banning you. If you think the warnings were not justified, report the issue." would've worked better really, I think. Just saying..

Seems like the thread was opened in the name of transparency. I'm glad it was opened. If you're now worried about being banned unexpectedly, voice your concerns and ask questions until you feel better.

This.

It's one of the things I love about this place.  Other forums would just make an announcement and it wouldn't be open to discussion.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I'm paranoid by nature, it's probably all good!

[SteelCurtain]

But, this misrepresentation can be seen in SteelCurtain's post, reasoning for why I am frustrated being how when I say "Possibility that some sort of conflicting judgement could end up in unfair action taking place" I say this very neutrally for a reason, not suggesting that it will. I even responded to Steel clarifying this. However, Steel, like the other people I have gotten mad at in the past, still pushed this willfully ignorant and ever-so-frustrating notion that I was claiming that "Staff is corrupt", and had a "Low opinion/expectation of staff". It's this mindset that people have, I can never understand, that somehow someone has to be either incredibly in favor of one side, or the other. Simply because I suggested something slightly in favor of one side, especially clarifying that this suggestion was only that the possibility of a single scenario could occur, DOES NOT mean I am extreme in this view, and to suggest this repeatedly after being corrected, not only is willful ignorance, but a failure to attempt to have a proper, meaningful, cooperative conversation with others. That is exactly why I am frustrated whenever I feel misrepresented, and I hope Stimbo, you understand where I am coming from.

I am sorry if I took exception to what your words clearly said. I accept that you didn't mean staff was corrupt, but you have to know that your words said something completely different.

We as a staff bend over backwards in an unwinnable battle to not be biased and not let our feelings about posters color how we vote on infractions. That is really why this rule is necessary. We purposely hamstring ourselves to the rules in order to not let people get under our skin and affect our vote on whether they actually broke the rules. We do this to a fault. Seriously. I wish I could let you peek behind the curtain to see how many reports we get where a poster writes something heinously offensive and we all vote 'no action' because their opinion, while disgusting, hasn't broken a rule.

So please understand that when you write:

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.

I take that personally, because there is an assumption required to say that.

[The Valkyrie]

But, this misrepresentation can be seen in SteelCurtain's post, reasoning for why I am frustrated being how when I say "Possibility that some sort of conflicting judgement could end up in unfair action taking place" I say this very neutrally for a reason, not suggesting that it will. I even responded to Steel clarifying this. However, Steel, like the other people I have gotten mad at in the past, still pushed this willfully ignorant and ever-so-frustrating notion that I was claiming that "Staff is corrupt", and had a "Low opinion/expectation of staff". It's this mindset that people have, I can never understand, that somehow someone has to be either incredibly in favor of one side, or the other. Simply because I suggested something slightly in favor of one side, especially clarifying that this suggestion was only that the possibility of a single scenario could occur, DOES NOT mean I am extreme in this view, and to suggest this repeatedly after being corrected, not only is willful ignorance, but a failure to attempt to have a proper, meaningful, cooperative conversation with others. That is exactly why I am frustrated whenever I feel misrepresented, and I hope Stimbo, you understand where I am coming from.

I am sorry if I took exception to what your words clearly said. I accept that you didn't mean staff was corrupt, but you have to know that your words said something completely different.

We as a staff bend over backwards in an unwinnable battle to not be biased and not let our feelings about posters color how we vote on infractions. That is really why this rule is necessary. We purposely hamstring ourselves to the rules in order to not let people get under our skin and affect our vote on whether they actually broke the rules. We do this to a fault. Seriously. I wish I could let you peek behind the curtain to see how many reports we get where a poster writes something heinously offensive and we all vote 'no action' because their opinion, while disgusting, hasn't broken a rule.

So please understand that when you write:

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.

I take that personally, because there is an assumption required to say that.

Let's look again where the rule states unanimous agreement is required, shall we?

There are also numerous instances where staff have recused themselves from voting on an issue because they have a personal stake in the matter.

That, alone, tells me all I need to know about the credibility of the staff.

[Jackalope]

Is it possible some rogue staff member with an overbearing personality could convince all the other staff members to unanimously ban someone just because the staff member doesn’t like that particular user?

Obviously, you're talking about me.

[Heat]

But, this misrepresentation can be seen in SteelCurtain's post, reasoning for why I am frustrated being how when I say "Possibility that some sort of conflicting judgement could end up in unfair action taking place" I say this very neutrally for a reason, not suggesting that it will. I even responded to Steel clarifying this. However, Steel, like the other people I have gotten mad at in the past, still pushed this willfully ignorant and ever-so-frustrating notion that I was claiming that "Staff is corrupt", and had a "Low opinion/expectation of staff". It's this mindset that people have, I can never understand, that somehow someone has to be either incredibly in favor of one side, or the other. Simply because I suggested something slightly in favor of one side, especially clarifying that this suggestion was only that the possibility of a single scenario could occur, DOES NOT mean I am extreme in this view, and to suggest this repeatedly after being corrected, not only is willful ignorance, but a failure to attempt to have a proper, meaningful, cooperative conversation with others. That is exactly why I am frustrated whenever I feel misrepresented, and I hope Stimbo, you understand where I am coming from.

I am sorry if I took exception to what your words clearly said. I accept that you didn't mean staff was corrupt, but you have to know that your words said something completely different.

We as a staff bend over backwards in an unwinnable battle to not be biased and not let our feelings about posters color how we vote on infractions. That is really why this rule is necessary. We purposely hamstring ourselves to the rules in order to not let people get under our skin and affect our vote on whether they actually broke the rules. We do this to a fault. Seriously. I wish I could let you peek behind the curtain to see how many reports we get where a poster writes something heinously offensive and we all vote 'no action' because their opinion, while disgusting, hasn't broken a rule.

So please understand that when you write:

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.

I take that personally, because there is an assumption required to say that.

Alright I can admit there was some assumption in that statement, although I didn't intend that to be the case. However I still disagree with taking that and then claiming I was claiming staff was corrupt or had a low opinion of them. It could be a personal issue who knows, I just feel like I always go through all this trouble to ensure my words are not misinterpreted and then the exact thing I was trying to prevent from being claimed ends up getting claimed. 

Yes that statement was poorly worded. I really just meant "I could see the possibility of ..." 

So sorry I responded so harshly. I'm just frustrated that's all. But I can understand where you're coming from.