MOB! MOB! MOB! MOB!
It’s actually an interesting idea; a vote to kick someone off the board doesn’t have to be binding (i.e. the admins don’t have to actually kick the poster off), but it could be a fairly useful tool for measuring, well, useless tools. 
I’m for it, as long as Charter members are exempt.
If you include Charter Members, that’s the day I’m outta here. (Read that any way you like.)
That’s what the ignore list is for. My own personal way to vote someone off my island.
Other than that, why would we want to create a community where only those just like the majority got to stay?
Just put the poster on your Ignore list.
I think that it would stifle discussion.
Great Debates would become a pansy-ass me too forum.
The Pit would become barren.
If I am personally annoyed enough by any given poster, there’s always the ignore feature. Anybody else has a shot at fighting my ignorance. 
And the vote on Berumda shorts was a resounding YES, I hope.
Ah, but the point is to bring the [del]entertainment[/del] drama of reality TV to the boards!
A lot of people on this board remind me of my boss’s wife. He’ll turn the TV on to Jersey Shore or Sister Wives and she’ll say that the show is disgusting, and when he asks if she wants him to change the channel she says no and keeps watching.
I’ve never understood why people seem to think this is a bad thing. It’s pretty much the reason that we have such sharp divides in this country. Heck, I seem to remember that there’s some sort of rally coming up to promote people actually being decent to the opposing side.
It’s the first thing I learned in my speech class (which was essentially a rhetoric class.) If your audience is directly opposite of your position, you cannot go in with guns blazing and expect to convince anyone. You just create hostility.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve sometimes engaged in less than nice answers. But that’s because I’m wanting to express my outrage more than I’m wanting to convince someone. Or, occasionally, I assume people are on the fence, and, in that scenario, a passionate reply can often persuade.
Theres already a bit of a ‘vote people off’ tendency in any forum in that unpopular positions tend to get piled on, and only trolls and the particularly hardy or motivated tend to survive that.
Last thing you need is to add to that if you want to see any real diversity of opinion.
Otara
Because it’s entirely one sided, and amounts in practice to “left wingers and moderates should be polite and submissive at all times, while right wingers should feel free to hurl accusations of treasonous and criminal behavior along with the occasional threat of violence with no retaliation or complaint.”
I don’t really see the partisan-ship of this board that people keep saying we have; both sides bore me in equal amounts bringing up the same tedious shit. 
I voted “no” because I didn’t wanted to get voted off. But… no one mentioned this Charter Member exemption prior to casting my vote.
I’m sensing a lot of insecurity around here.
The ultimate Mafia game. I suck at Mafia though, so I’d probably be [del]executed[/del] voted off within the first few days.
I voted No.
Once again, I find myself agreeing with Skald.
Usually, I’m fully in opposition to anything that Der Trihs has to say. This is one of the rare things we can agree on. I don’t post much in GD, but one of the reasons I come here is to read that forum. I don’t want people who have something interesting and thought provoking staying silent out of fear.
I prefer the current system of mockery and Pitting.
As a Charter Member, of course, my vote counts double.
Offering dissenting views in a gentle, respectful, humble way isn’t a bad thing at all. The problems come when you require this, and threaten to ban those who refuse to comply.
Good point - after all, when was the last time the SDMB tolerated anything resembling an emphatic left-of-center opinion without accusations of criminal behavior and threats of violence?
If there’s a particular poster who the mods think may deserve banning but cannot reach a consensus on, sure, as long as the admins e-mail all the members.
Otherwise, fuck no. Except the OP.
I’m not in favor of it as a general rule, but I think I personally should have the authority as I’d use it wisely and only against people who anybody would agree are objectionable, such as those who are obvious trolls or needlessly belligerent or are winning against me in a debate.