Administrators: Server Rule 1.2.

[n00bl3t]

I saw a reference in the OP's 1st post on the end in parentheses that I didn't notice before the 9th page was created, so if it was there from the get go, then I'll rattle off the whole mea culpa mantra...but I could ::almost:: swear that part was added later on without edit-credit. (although, I did, in fact overlook the short hoodlum post on page 5 or so)

I'm not an archiver, so I'm not really sure honestly.


Anyhoo, since there is only one example of "threat" does only one single example prove power drunkeness?

I think not


I'd love to continue the discussion on this issue. If it really is an issue, then it needs more examples, then we could present remedies to it.

My first post has not been edited since any of your account(s) came into this thread.

It was one recent example that stuck in my head, since 1.2 is meant to be heavily discussed and all that. (I assumed this to be the case even before responses were made here.)

As for power-drunkedness, bias, negligence, conspiracies, et cetera, that is not my point. Just a discussion about the rule, how it has been used, how it will be used and the community's thoughts on anything relevant to it.

Remedies are un-needed. I just want to broaden my understanding of 1.2, for now.

---

Anything I say is not intended as offensive, and to try and deliberately misinterpret it as such would be an attempt at trolling via misrepresentation.

It's not a conspiracy, it's localised bias. They're not intelligent enough to form a conspiracy.