Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26295802-20161221211127/@comment-26295802-20161222154334

Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: Look at it this way; Eureka states that Aramir, exempli gratias, has broken one of these extremely vague rules. So long as there's the slightest of splits, Aramir is banned indefinitely. Is that fair?

As a side note, if you want the rules to cover more things, then add in clauses for what it doesn't cover. But at least recognise the fact that it isn't necessary to completely tear a system apart to change it. These rules are not so incredibly vague. And yes, Aramir would be banned very briefly until he could be aquited (or setenced), by a three fourth's majority. If you think that should change, perhaps you should respectfully say so, rather then going on a tirade against the entire idea of the rules being formed by the people.