Rule Change (New Staff Power)

[Joods]

Can't you just ban a persons IP Addy to stop the socks?

[Jackalope]

Can't you just ban a persons IP Addy to stop the socks?

Not when they drive around half a state using different public WiFi.

[Joods]

Well, there is that.

[ignoramus]

Also, easy to do with a VPN.

[Violet]

Not a very forward-thinking move, I wouldn't think. Maybe it's working out for yall, for now- I mean: even fundamentally broken systems aren't necessarily subject to instantaneous collapse. But... bee careful that as you move forward, you ensure that staff background diversifies and contains minority elements, and stays that way. Otherwise: shit like this goes from 'absurdly corruptible' to 'utterly corrupt'. You always need someone you don't agree with or overall like... and 48 hours is a pretty damn intense window for punishing someone who hasn't broken any actionable rules.

Though, I suppose it don't matter much for democracy overall if staff, without any checks or balances, can always give itself powers... and even then, since democracy always is a temporary state itself, and isn't even close to always a good one, point is moot overall anyway.

Hehe. Hehehehehehe  

Ooh, hey... on the subject of manageability: hasn't A69 outlived its ideological sphere? Maybe won't get so much 'upsetiness' if ya drop that place like its a fester. Unsustainable formats don't play well in combination... this forum should be a 1-unsustainable-idea zone only, so drop the more problematic one: way fewer 'creeps', less overall drama in public sphere, less leakage (place won't exist to leak Sexually Transfused Dialogues from), more focus. Overall easier enforcement decisions and less obfuscation. 

Not that it's my decision or anything... fuck but that's clear enough... but there are alternative routes towards the same end; routes that don't require AF becoming just another one of those sites where the mods can't be called out on their bullshit. The only reason this could be 'okay' from a community perspective is that AF's mods have traditionally been mostly class-acts. But what about when that no longer holds true? This is so short-sighted it's just bizarre... it's almost as if nobody's considered the first core question of management:

What is Atheistforums.org's lifespan?

This kind of rule does not seem indicative of a long lifespan... but I doubt that is the intended effect. Application is very very important in this. Well, it is to me. Heheheh

[Edwardo Piet]

It's good to see you Violet.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I like violet. She likes to talk sense. Good. Good.

[Marsellus Wallace]

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.

Feel free to ask questions in this thread.

- Tiberius

sounds vague to me... what kinda negative influence we talking about ?

[Edwardo Piet]

Anyone who all by themselves persistently create a highly toxic atmosphere on the forums.

[Marsellus Wallace]

Anyone who all by themselves persistently create a highly toxic atmosphere on the forums.

which layer we talkin' about ? 




with all sewiousness though, am I creating a toxic atmosphere ?