Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26295802-20161220024905/@comment-26347028-20161220210442

Dragonbiscuit wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote:

Dragonbiscuit wrote: How about we invite the Devil's Advocate whenever Malta and someone who Malta doesn't like/Someone who doesn't like Malta is in the same forum... I say this because this is what happens. Someone gets all "Define this and that" and i'm the bloody lawyer around here... and someone else gets all "Oh so this is an excuse for this and that" How about this rule. The instigator is punished severely seeing as we apparently need to bring Middle School immaturity rules into this. And if someone is accused of instigating stuff then we have as unbias a vote we can of if the claims are true or not. I'm basically saying that half the wiki is acting like 10 year olds and that if that's how it's gonna be the best way to handle it is to do the classic school thing of "Don't respond, ignore it, get an adult" or in this case, ignore it, get a staff who is as unbias as possible not the staff who will side with you if you were seen by all of the planet shooting someone and then admitted to it. SO a rule punishing instigators and a rule forbidding super-bias staff from participating in situations that their bias will come in play. And when I say bias I mean like well the example above. In other words if person A. hates Heart and they're staff they shouldn't be handlind Heart related things just like if someone is super bias in favor of her they shouldn't. Sorry if anyone didn't want to be an example but that's how it is. :P That's really not going to happen. Why because no one wants to risk not getting their way? Because it's an unreasonable demand, not to mention all sorts of hell about "unbiased".