|
My issue is a minor one. The rules AS WRITTEN state that misleading names are forbidden. They state that there is a permanent ban for the second offense.
I asked why such strongly worded rules were not being enforced, and was told that rule G meant no rule was binding TO A MODERATOR.
This troubles me.
Either rules are flexible and discussion is welcomed, or rules are absolute.
In this case I was told that all the rules were only open to discussion to the heirachs with access.
I believe that this site has strength in the ability for us to engage in adult discourse. I welcome polite structure and a discussion of good behaviour.
I find uncomfortable the implication that my opinion is unimportant and compliance is mandatory, whereas moderator compliance is at their own unchallenged discretion.
I can state my case no clearer than to say politeness is good, but draconian rules are no way to foster politeness. A system that brooks no compromise, and where discretion lies in the hands of a sole official who is judge, jury and executioner is open to misuse.
I want to be clear that I have not seen such misuse and that as I stated in the room yesterday (as several people can attest) my very contrary position was taken as Devil's Advocate.
__________________
╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝
|