Board Thread:News and Announcements/@comment-27097330-20170224221935/@comment-26347028-20170319171021

ChazmanianDevil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: ChazmanianDevil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: ChazmanianDevil wrote: Auraestus wrote: I edited the rules a bit, take a look. It's better, but for the biggest problem was always the message wall clause and that remains. A user can do as they wish on their message wall, and to say otherwise encourages harassment and authoritarianism. Then that's the issue, not the whole damn system. I don't care how you want to implement such a system, so long as it prevents abuse of it. I tried to do that, and you lot yelled at me that by preventing abuse I was taking away people's own "right" to do certain things. There are other problems of course. There's no game master freedom clause, it kind of rules out democratic rule making, and the way you got them passed was almost as bad as Dragon's whole conspiracy ban. And by the time they're reworked like this, they're no longer you're rules.

The way I see it there are three ways through this. The simple, effective rules, decided upon by the wiki, your rules, or a new set hammered out by Aurae. While the third option may seem the most appealing to people who don't want to take sides, it really only puts off the problem. I fail to see how any of it was at all a conspiracy or anything like. Sure, I'm annoyed that you lot went in and threw out some incredibly functional and well-defined rules for the piece of (you'll have to excuse me saying so) shit that you did replace it with, but I'm not some lunatic who goes on a personal vendetta the moment anyone dos anything against me.

The crap vomited out by Imrahil, Patrick, and co. (can't remember if you were part of it) showed a clear lack of understanding on all points. It's simple, sure, but simple also in the sense that it's stupid. It doesn't function as a set of rules, it functions as a blank cheque to the Staff to do whatsoever they wish. If you trust that, fine, but there have been multiple accounts already of major divides inside of the Staff, caused by disagreeements on punishment etc. We need a united front against this sort of thing, and while it may not be common, and someone like you may not appreciate the necessity, the magnitude of the things covered inside of such rules needs to be large, or decisiveness falls apart and so too, shortly after, will the whole Wiki, if the issue is large enough. I'm sure I'm not the only one here not wanting that. That's not the point. The point is that you originally got your rules through without even consulting the rest of the wiki. Then when people finally got a better set in, you just advantage and did it again! Let's be quite clear, Eureka did not have to revert the rules for us to consider them, we easily could have just gone to the last edit and looked at them. So reverting the rules was ridiculous and completely out of both of your jurisdiction.

The rules "vomited out" were simple and effective. This is not a country. This is a small wiki. We specify what needs to be specified and leave everything else alone. And you keep bringing up staff abuse of power, but I disagree, the rules don't encourage abuse of power they encourage admins to figure things out through communication and make compromises. And even if it was neccessary to specify exactly ban terms and lengths why should you be the one who decides? You're not an admin and you ou don't represent the whole wiki. Why should it be necessary to consult the wiki, Chaz, if what someone is doing is fairly simple, and a good thing to do? I quite clearly remember there being no intent on specifically ignoring the "will of the people", as I'm expecting you to put it at some point, as there was no voice for the people, there was no visible majority, and so on. I can't know what people think if they don't say it. Now, with that being said, I refer you to what I originally said in this reply. So what?

Simple, yes, but not effective. To be effective they need to do a fair few things; cause an immediate response, cause a united response, or cause a specific response, to name but a few. It does the last, at the cost of the first two. Mine, however, did all three. If a new problem arose, a new precedent would be set, but everything else stayed the same, and most issues were covered. The absolute rubbish you're trying to defend caused arguments, over both the magnitude of punishment, and the issues punished. They are, to put it as simply as possible, because I know you like it simple, ineffective.