Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26295802-20161221211127/@comment-26347028-20161222161227

High Prince Imrahil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote:

High Prince Imrahil wrote:

Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote:

Morgoth the first dark lord wrote: I believe the new rules should be built in Malta's rules but we should just change or remove some things are not needed. The thing I don't like about our current rules is that everything is defined and has one and only meaning. The reason why is because if someone did something which by staff was considered bannable or worth a warning, if the thing he did wasn't exactly as the rules were saying it, then he wouldn't get a ban or warning. That's why not everything shall be defined. Also, they aren't easy rules to learn for new members. Hell, I've read them about 10 times and I still don't remember much. If something isn't covered and happens, the idea is to set a precedent and add it to the Rules. That's how modern law systems work. Well, that's not how these rules work. I'm sorry, Itallie, but the entire wiki has voted unanimously for the new rules, and as much as I appreciate your effort, I don't think it's quite fair to keep the old rules simply because a single person likes them and spent a lot of time on them. This isn't about whether or not the "better" rules are being implemented, this is about the fact that you just went right ahead - neglecting to ask Auraestus, or even look at the current Rules before doing it. You seem to be jumping about quite a bit. So now it isn't about which rules are better? It's just about which rules were made first? I sense a little argumentum ad antiquitatem here... I am angry at the decision to inform no one, and while I dislike the currently proposed ones, I also dislike democracy.