Thread:Auraestus/@comment-27097330-20160824163647/@comment-26347028-20160827155145

The powers are exactly the same, so yes, why else but to use them? And when their powers are the same as those used for moderation, we can presume they are to be used for moderation. Hence, restrictions should also be the same. Now, what was your point with that paragraph because honestly all I could tell was "why are you saying people can't do stuff" because, well, I'm not. So could you clarify that?

I had a conversation with Glosur in late July when I was making the rules about things that should be there. I forgot about it, overlooked it and procrastinated it, but something more recently made me think of the conversation. That was why I started, and that was the authority I used to get the addition to the rules. The decision for it to be upheld was made by Eureka and Shade. Hence, added by "Royal" command, and upheld by a "regency council" if you look at it that way.

The rule is already there. If Glosur is neutral on the issue, then it doesn't get removed. If a large group of senators decide to abstain, or a large group of MP's decide to abstain (in this example, the majority) the decision is not "abstain". The decision is what the rest say. However, since the decision is only for the one person in this case unless he opens it up, it's a unanimous vote for "abstain" and so nothing happens. I don't want to prevent a community vote, I want to follow protocol, and not try and overrule the founder when he disagrees with me. If Glosur wants to make the admins decide, they can decide. If Glosur wants to decide himself, he can decide. If he wants to set it to the people, they can decide. But if he instead wants to remain neutral, no decision is made and thus no change.

The thing is, Eureka was talking about what the rules say on the issue. If you read my next reply, what is said is that the rules specify that the reasons necessary are the same as those of the Forums. Now, they both upheld the amendment of the rules, so if Eureka didn't actually read that part then yes, that's a bit of a problem. But we're not here to talk about negligence, we're here to talk about the paragraph added, which he upheld, and then apparently misunderstood. That statement by Eureka is in the context of what the rules say, which I then clarified underneath. But I wouldn't expect you to show any of that, because that wouldn't help your case, would it?