Posts: 3676
Threads: 354
Joined: April 12, 2015
Reputation:
42
RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
January 15, 2016 at 8:27 pm
(January 14, 2016 at 10:25 pm)Stimbo Wrote: (January 14, 2016 at 9:28 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: That's why I just let him lick the bowl.
Can I ask, maybe as a special treat one time, if you might flush it first?
Give this man another vote!
The god who allows children to be raped out of respect for the free will choice of the rapist, but punishes gay men for engaging in mutually consensual sex couldn't possibly be responsible for an intelligently designed universe.
I may defend your right to free speech, but i won't help you pass out flyers.
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.
--Voltaire
Nietzsche isn't dead. How do I know he lives? He lives in my mind.
Posts: 14932
Threads: 684
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
142
RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
January 17, 2016 at 9:16 pm
The "Nuclear Option" has been changed into a rule, worded as follows:
Quote:Overwhelmingly Negative Influences
Members are not allowed to engage in any activity which has an overwhelmingly negative influence on the forums as a whole. The purpose of these forums is to promote discussion and debate between people of different belief systems, which all members should try to do in a non-disruptive manner. Whilst there are no points of view that a member can hold which would be considered a negative influence, a member can be a negative influence if their behavior is consistently disruptive and upsetting to active members.
Staff will judge whether a member has an overwhelmingly negative influence on the forums, and will punish that member appropriately. All punishments for violations of this rule will require active staff to vote during a 48 hour time period. A single vote of dissent will prevent punishment from being carried out. Only unanimous agreement of the staff who vote within the time period will see the punishment enforced.
Posts: 28609
Threads: 527
Joined: June 16, 2015
Reputation:
89
RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
January 17, 2016 at 10:22 pm
Sounds good. But then what do I know. Never thought the nuke option would cause such havoc.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
Posts: 4738
Threads: 7
Joined: October 17, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
January 19, 2016 at 6:21 am
I'm a little late to this party, but since I was mentioned by name, I have to address a couple of points.
(January 14, 2016 at 9:04 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: (January 14, 2016 at 8:23 pm)Losty Wrote: You can't really skirt around a rule like that though. It's open to interpretation.
Delicate, Huggy, et al did a good job
Please....
Show me where I've done any such thing and I'll show you where I've done what the rules explicitly stated you can do (the rule has since been changed btw), and still received a warning.
I've received a warning for trolling because I quoted someones post in my signature (I have the pm to back it up), because "it served no other purpose than to shame another member". Which I admit was entirely the point. If you make ridiculous statements, you SHOULD feel ashamed when it gets brought up.
You can insult someone to your hearts content (as long as it's a "theist"), just don't embarrass them (atheist) with their own statements.
The point there is no need for this new rule, especially when this "nuclear option" already has a precedent set on psychoslice, who was banned for basically being an ass, didn't take long to do it either.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-12336-po...#pid905772
Quote:Banned psychoslice for being downright abusive. In the interest of transparency, we haven't reached quorum for a permanent ban, but I'm not going to let him shit up the forum until we've made a decision about what we will do permanently. Not on my watch.
This is where this is coming from. I doubt there will be any objections.
Posts: 19648
Threads: 177
Joined: July 31, 2012
Reputation:
91
RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
January 19, 2016 at 6:26 am
(This post was last modified: January 19, 2016 at 6:27 am by pocaracas.)
Huggy, now everyone will say something that will make you go even more on the defense and 20 pages later, you'll get nuked.
Damn!
(the Oracle has spoken)
Posts: 15351
Threads: 118
Joined: January 13, 2014
Reputation:
116
RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
January 19, 2016 at 6:36 am
I, for one, wouldn't vote to nuke Huggy for his usual bullshit. He's harmless, and everyone here sees him as a silly pedant.
Also, psychoslice was removed because he self immolated. He was trying to get banned on purpose because he made an emotive "I'm leaving" thread and nobody gave two shits. So he decided to go down in a blaze of trolling (un)glory.
So, he was removed for breaching the rules. Which is not a precedent for this new rule.
"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!<---
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
154
RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
January 19, 2016 at 6:42 am
(This post was last modified: January 19, 2016 at 6:42 am by robvalue.)
I like the new rule. It's also a rule, so it does count as breaking the rules. 
I'm glad we didn't go with the "nuclear" title in the rules section.
Posts: 18544
Threads: 145
Joined: March 18, 2015
Reputation:
100
RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
January 19, 2016 at 7:38 am
(This post was last modified: January 19, 2016 at 7:39 am by Joods.)
No one asked for my opinion on huggy but I will give it anyway. Personally, huggy, to me is harmless. He debates but honestly, I've never seen where he's called anyone some of the horrendous names I've seen from some of the recently banned asses.
I may not agree with huggy much of the time, but I haven't seen where he's really been a jerk to the point where he's angered so many people that they'd want him gone.
Point being, I hope he never does anything that gets him banned.
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand.
(November 14, 2018 at 8:57 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Have a good day at work. If we ever meet in a professional setting, let me answer your question now. Yes, I DO want fries with that.
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
155
RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
January 19, 2016 at 9:59 am
I would hate to see that too, but it's down to him of course. The point being that if he does end up getting banned, it would be because of behaviour which breaches the Rules; and not because he happens to identify as a theist.
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.'
Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
January 20, 2016 at 1:57 pm
(January 19, 2016 at 9:59 am)Stimbo Wrote: I would hate to see that too, but it's down to him of course. The point being that if he does end up getting banned, it would be because of behaviour which breaches the Rules; and not because he happens to identify as a theist.
Would it be considered 'disruptive' if a theist 'sought the last word' in an argument or a civil disagreement? vise versa would an Atheist be considered 'disruptive' in a similar situation?
I think what Huggie is speaking about is the down right distain Atheists have when a theist has rightfully beaten them into a corner. A practice that is completely ignored when an atheist beats a theist into a similar corner. Even if they flame and rage against the theist's personal attributes to get them there.
|
