new rule proposal

hillbillyatheist · Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:32 pm Post subject: new rule proposal

should we have a rule whereby we can have a forum member calls for a ban, and a vote by the general membership confirms or rejects the ban?

please give reasons for your position.

(be advised that a majority vote may not make this rule offical. the final virdict will be from the ivory tower. this is to see what you the membership feel and why.)

Jutter · Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:36 pm Post subject:

I can recall that when I wasn't posting here for that long yet, Todangst went out of his way to label me a troll, and convince others that I was a troll. (And there were plenty of people kissing his butt back then, to put it in undiplomatic terms). Had a vote-off-the-island rule been in place at the time, and had Todangst been successfull, I might have been banned from this forum a long time ago.... probably months before Tod came around and learned to appreciate my contributions as he eventually did.

Count on me to fight against the introduction of such mob-rule tactics hand and tooth.
_________________
~ Let us be reasonable ~
Congratulations: you are paracorrect about the supernatural.
*"If there were nobody listening to gods anymore, there would be nothing left for us to do,...
... then to finally start listening to each other."
*As any gamer will tell you: God-mode is a cheat-code.

baddogma · Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:38 pm Post subject:

Yes, BUT it has to work like a jury of peers with the mods passing ultimate judgment, having reviewed the individual case and complaints brought up against a poster.
_________________
Join http://www.sefora.org/

Evidence>Faith

Moloth · Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:39 pm Post subject:

no.

this isn't about 'voting off the island' because we don't like someone. this is about ridding ourselves of known and obvious trolls that are here purely to disrupt.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-

www.Moloth.com

Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total

baddogma · Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:41 pm Post subject:

How about defining the rules we allready have so they aren't so fucking subjective?
_________________
Join http://www.sefora.org/

Evidence>Faith

Philosophos · Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:42 pm Post subject:

As a poster:

No. This is a horrible rule, primarily because it may curb my mocking of HBA (what a fuckin' hick!!!).

As an admin:

I'll support what the posters support, as long as there's some semblance of reasoning supporting the rule.
_________________
Ass!
Hole!
Ass!
Hole!

baddogma · Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:42 pm Post subject:

Philosophos · Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:44 pm Post subject:

PJS · Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject:

Voted No.

With such a rule in place there may be a chilling effect on unpopular stances being posted. It's sometimes annoying to see threads consistently derailed by predictable patterns of diatribes, but I'd rather have the relatively free flow of ideas. It's normally easy to simply not engage the irrational sorts who pop in and out on these forums. Plus, sometimes there is an entertainment value to the whole carnival.
_________________
The path of least resistance and least trouble is a mental rut already made. It requires troublesome work to undertake the alternation of old beliefs.
-John Dewey

tinker683 · Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:48 pm Post subject:

I personally am against this rule.

I think that if you feel that a person is a "troll" and doesn't really contribute anything, you need to PM the mods and let them decide. If a person is as truly disruptive as you think there are, then I imagine the mods would be getting numerous complaints against this particular person, at which case I think that the person in question needs to be given a warning and told to tone it down. If he/she still doesn't...well, then I think you have a good case to ban them.

There are posters I know who post here who don't have as much popularily as some others, but I value their opinion (even if I disagree with it) and what would happen if the "majority" decided they shouldn't post here anymore, for whatever reason? What am I supposed to do then?
_________________
"Not everything that steps out of line, and thus 'abnormal', must necessarily be 'inferior'" - Hans Asperger, 1938

"If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always gotten" - Unknown Author

baddogma · Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:49 pm Post subject:

Philosophos · Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:52 pm Post subject:

Philosophos · Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:55 pm Post subject:

Moloth · Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:56 pm Post subject:

there needs to be a poll for the OTHER rule.

this for the 'voting off the island' rule.

what about the 'trolling' rule?
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-

www.Moloth.com

Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total

Mr_C · Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:56 pm Post subject:

Even though I'm against some of the implications of this rule, I don't see how it could do any harm as long as the vote was unanimous.

That said, I still voted "no".

On a side note, do y'all remember This Thread?
It was so lulzy. It inspired This Post, which inspired This Post.

Also, the phrase "cunt punt" made an appearance. All in all, it may be my favorite all-time thread, just for sentimental value.
_________________
"If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?"
Carl Sagan

The Atheist Forums Rules
Summary: Just play nice, mmkay?

	AtheistForums.com Forum Index -> General Discussion	All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11 Next
Page 1 of 11