(05-18-2015, 09:04 PM)Hammersmith Wrote:(05-18-2015, 06:48 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: So then, if as you three say, Image Macros and such add little to nothing to most discussions, but should not be banned.
How should we determine whether or not they're appropriate?
Forums like something awful have thread tags, maybe we could try something like that here? Maybe two sets of rules, one for serious threads and one for light hearted ones?
I still maintain that I could care less about warnings, except for the permaban. I'm totally cool getting one and toning it down for a few weeks. However their permanence almost just tempts me to keep going.
Sort of, "I'll get 10 eventually, so fuck it."
Banned? No. Â Warned? Yes. Â I think the current revamp of the rule is really the best approach to it.
As for the "Well fuck it", that's a non-sequitor example. Â The same sort of logic applies to "I'm going to die anyway, why not murder a baby? Fuck it yolo."
We're dealing within the bounds of reason. Â If we're dealing with crazies, or in this case a terminal troll, they're not going to be bound by what we're discussing in the first place so there's no point in accounting for them other than "They're going to run into an admin, fuck THEM."
I think warnings work. Â We've already seen people check themselves before wrecking themselves, with the one hiccup so far being the one area that had too much non-defined application.
I think warnings work. Â I don't think "Well if crazy people do it why should we have rules at all" is good counter logic against them.
I would agree, if the rules were better defined, and if minor infractions did not inevitably lead to a ban.
Currently though the issue has been any discussion of this topic has been hijacked by people who cry out loudly that dissension and disagreement are wrong, and that you should essentially obey, or get out.
Then it all goes downhill from there, the recent thread 'police state thread' is a decent example.
Reform is not bad, people. And not liking a thing is ok.
