Hobart, that’s pretty funny.

CS is right, and what we think about the fairness of a rule is really irrelevant anyway.

kraigu Posted:

Hobart, that’s pretty funny.

CS is right, and what we think about the fairness of a rule is really irrelevant anyway.

Ima rule this ghost town with an iron fist.

duca Posted:

Just out of curiousity, was this new rule ran past the Task Force?

No, this one was just among admins and a few mods.

Listen, I understand that some people don’t agree with this rule. That happens. But as I’ve said before, we don’t expect it will be enforced very often, and we’re not even asking mods to be diligent about it.

If we decide to change it later, we can. I feel comfortable knowing it’s there, and it really shouldn’t affect your day-to-day experience. The rule in question doesn’t even mention Wikipedia at all, but I can think of half a dozen potential offenses we’d want to protect ourselves from (I won’t give you any ideas though), with the tools we have at our disposal.

Perhaps your local forum doesn’t have a rule like this. But we face issues unlike the vast majority of sites out there. And as you well know, most admins in our position wouldn’t bother being so obliging about this kind of thing and just ban people for being dinks.

Hobart Bliggity Posted:

It’s like, I can [...] purposely **** up areas that are supposed to be ****-free

Gee, mister…you would really do a thing like that? There oughta be a law! Log in to see images!

Hobart Bliggity Posted:

Make me a mod so I can save you guys the trouble and repeatedly ban myself.

Sounds like a logical decision to me.