Yeah, as has been said, APM is a lying b-- err... fatherless child. That's not enough to demonstrate god-moding. If people couldn't lie, how could we have bad guys? I mean, that's the first thing you do on the road to being bad. The devious plotting of the downfall of known civilization comes later. 
That being said, it's true that there are people who, as Kes said, behave like toddlers and cry "Godmode!" every time a wolf shows up and starts eating their sheep. These are generally the guys who deliberately break the rules, get thrown out, and then tell anyone they can find that they didn't break the rules and were unfairly discriminated against. (Lawyers in sheep's clothing?)
Anyway, I tend to agree with Varov about the strict-scrutiny thing, but there are ... opposing extremes.
The rules shouldn't be so strict that there is no room for discretion. If someone is obviously causing problems, you shouldn't have to wait for five notarized depositions from three witnesses and a game master and a majority vote of both the House and the Senate in order to do something about it.
On the other hand, it's not very polite to say "The council has the right to suspend or terminate your membership at any time and for any reason, and your acceptance of membership constitutes acknowledgment and acceptance of that right". Not everyone believes in the "benevolent dictatorship" model. :joker:
There is a middle ground, somewhere.... right? :study:
P.S. --
Well, Castiel did ask for vivid examples. I'm like Vivid Example Warehouse over here.
That being said, it's true that there are people who, as Kes said, behave like toddlers and cry "Godmode!" every time a wolf shows up and starts eating their sheep. These are generally the guys who deliberately break the rules, get thrown out, and then tell anyone they can find that they didn't break the rules and were unfairly discriminated against. (Lawyers in sheep's clothing?)
Anyway, I tend to agree with Varov about the strict-scrutiny thing, but there are ... opposing extremes.
The rules shouldn't be so strict that there is no room for discretion. If someone is obviously causing problems, you shouldn't have to wait for five notarized depositions from three witnesses and a game master and a majority vote of both the House and the Senate in order to do something about it.
On the other hand, it's not very polite to say "The council has the right to suspend or terminate your membership at any time and for any reason, and your acceptance of membership constitutes acknowledgment and acceptance of that right". Not everyone believes in the "benevolent dictatorship" model. :joker:
There is a middle ground, somewhere.... right? :study:
P.S. --
Tyriont Wrote:Also, I request that when this gets officially written up we utilize AbsurdlyPowerfulMan and UnfortunateGuy for examples as they amuse me greatly.
Well, Castiel did ask for vivid examples. I'm like Vivid Example Warehouse over here.
