A quick word on "Overwhelmingly Negative Influences"

[Shell B]

We don't even have ads anymore. If you think they covered the cost of this place before Tibs made some smart server changes, you're wrong. For the majority of this forum's life, it has lost money, and it has never been an earner. Insinuating that is bullshit when the bills for this shit comes out of our bank account every month. Donations cover a small portion...sometimes.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's a pretty narrow construction of a rule that contains the word "overwhelming". Seems to me that derailing a thread is not the only, much less the worst, negative influence a member can exert on the forum.

[brewer]

Well, I guess how much this particular "Overwhelming Negatve Influence" is actually contributing to discussions is up for debate, then.  Given how much he(and let's face it, we all know who is being discussed) likes to antagonize and minimize the feelings of anyone that shows the slightest bit of vulnerability due to past experience, spends dozens of pages arguing semantics only to try and backtrack later, courts controversy for the sake of courting controversy, and generally relishes in getting a reaction out of people, I'm confident he's just trolling at this point.  

I'm all for freedom of speech, but how far do we let someone who is so clearly abusing this freedom to skirt the "no trolling" rule?  How many egregiously stupid and nonsensical things does he have to say before it's decided that he's just doing it to piss people off?

I agree that he's doing it to piss people off.   It's just, in his mind he is pissing us off on purpose as a way to "teach" us, or shock us into his way of thinking.  He sees us as a hive mind, that needs help. He's admitted all of this at various times.  It's Troll-like behavior for sure, but I believe he is sincerely invested in his actions and statements.  If that's truly the case, then Tibs is right.  Banning is not appropriate at this point.  As much as it HURTS me to admit that.  

This "he" has got to be Randy Carson. What form has he taken this time?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

That is a very misguided and uninformed accusation and assessment, Nymph. I don't recall ever discussing the financial situation or flow of traffic to the forum in our discussions in the staff areas. Of course you have to take my word on that, but it's true.

Indeed, the flow of traffic and financial support for the forum in relation to this discussion is, for me, irrelevant. It comes down more to the basic foundation of the forum, a forum I joined several years ago and which I stuck around on and contribute to both with time and money because I agree with the free speech ethos. Advertisements don't bring in any money, the only thing that does is the contributions I and the other contributers pay out of our own coffers. So you'll excuse me for taking issue with the accusation that all we care about is controversy to generate revenue. It's way wide of the mark.

I doubt I can say anything to placate you or the situation that has arisen as a result of the discussions in other threads. Apart from stating the obvious that this is the Internet, and not everyone will agree all the time, this forum has always, and will always, be based on people speaking their mind. Of course we regulate where needed, and we discuss (and discuss extensively) when matters such as this arise. But we are not in the business of policing beliefs or reactions to those beliefs. As abhorrent as some people's beliefs are, and as 'offensive' as their reactions and posts might be, people are not going to be banned for airing them. The forum is replete with harsh posts, and even harsher responses, and allah knows I've been involved in some of them in the past, but I am thankful those conversations and interactions were not stymied based on the reactions of myself or others.

[Tiberius]

The irony here is that we got rid of ads in part because the ad network started requiring us to delete posts containing "offensive" language and sexual themes. We decided we didn't want to do that.

[Tiberius]

That's a pretty narrow construction of a rule that contains the word "overwhelming". Seems to me that derailing a thread is not the only, much less the worst, negative influence a member can exert on the forum.

Did you miss this part?

"Disrupting a discussion can happen in many ways"

[Shell B]

I want to also point out that controversy makes it harder to get ad service, not easier.

Crap. Tubby got there first.

[KevinM1]

Several people have voiced their opinions regarding members that staff has been reluctant to ban under the "Overwhelmingly Negative Influences" rules, despite the fact that members sometimes say very upsetting and even abhorrent things to other members.

To understand why we ultimately came to our decision (not to invoke the rule), one must understand both the purpose of the forums as a whole, and also the purpose of the rule.

Starting with the former: the forums were created in order to allow people from all religions and religious backgrounds to discuss their beliefs without fear of being banned for holding them. At the time, too many atheist forums would simply ban religious members for saying things that went against "common decency", and likewise, religious forums would often ban atheists for being confrontational. When discussing deeply held beliefs, whether you are an atheist or a theist, discussions often get heated as disagreements get thrown back and forth. AtheistForums.org was set up to allow people to discuss their conflicting beliefs, allowing the debates to get heated, but with some rules in place to prevent all-out anarchy (e.g. flame wars). We've wavered from that purpose several times in our history, but I tend to think that overall (and certainly in our current incarnation) we've done a pretty good job holding to it.

This is a place, and should continue to be a place, where people can express their beliefs, no matter how abhorrent or upsetting they might be to other members, provided that they do so in a discussion.

The purpose of the "Overwhelmingly Negative Influences" rule is to allow staff to remove members who are not contributing to discussions, but are rather disrupting discussions. This behavior goes against the very purpose of the forums, and is the reason why we implemented the rule. Disrupting a discussion can happen in many ways, but one way in which it cannot happen is when a member posts their own opinion in a relevant thread. We aren't in the business of telling people what opinions they can or cannot post, especially if those opinions are about the thread subject in some way. The "Overwhelmingly Negative Influences" rule is not intended to get rid of people with "undesirable" opinions, because in the context of the purpose of the forums, there are no undesirable opinions.

This is all well and good, but at what point do you worry that the inmates will run the asylum?  Because while the person in question hasn't violated those rules you mentioned, he has, with stated intent, deliberately written atrocious things simply to piss people off.  I mean, shit, I reported one such post where he admits it in the thread that started this whole drama.

And yeah, we can ignore, use the ignore feature, etc., but that has never been a real solution.  Why?  Because some people don't like ignoring others out of principle.  And someone quoting an ignored person has that ignored person's text in the non-ignored person's message.  And there's always some newbie who, not knowing the personalities here, engages and quickly finds themselves bombarded with bullshit when all they want is support.  I mean, shit, how many times have the old vultures circled around kids who were just barely getting comfortable with the mere idea of questioning their beliefs?

I dunno.  I'm *this* close to saying "fuck it" myself.  Because we shouldn't tolerate someone like the person in question being able to run off other, positively contributing people from the community.  I'd rather have 100 Mamacita's than Drich.  I'd rather have 1000 Robs than Drich.  And that it's even up for debate is, frankly, idiotic.

And, keep in mind, no one is saying "Drich is a Christian!  Get him!"  What we're saying is that he intentionally tries to hurt people, and that when he succeeds you guys are like "Whelp, nothing we can do.  Deal with it yourselves" which is utter bullshit.  Get off your asses and mod.

There's more to modding than getting rid of spammers and sock puppets.  I know, I did it at another place for 5-6 years.  And, yeah, sometimes it's difficult.  But you need to do it, otherwise you'll have no forum left.  Because people don't want to deal with his kind of bullshit all the time, and like I said above you can't just ignore it.  Not if you're actually trying to stay engaged with the forum.  And, really, fuck the idea of making those of us who don't make (many) waves have to curtail our behavior on here in order to tolerate the existence of the utter assholes.

You know what?  Fuck it.  I'm out, too.

[Tiberius]

Not my fault I'm tubby, it's all that delicious eggnog.

[Minimalist]

Again I wish I knew for sure what was going on but I'd say "lighten up, people."  If someone says something you don't like, tell them off.  

Jesus fucking christ.  With all the drama around here the staff should start giving out Oscars.