Administrators: Server Rule 1.2.

[n00bl3t]

Honestly, no worries. I've seen non-issues morph into hot buttons with little effort for years now & with as many pages as this thread has generated so far...I can't help but say: "I hear what's bein' said, but what's the point?"

It's already been made clear most eloquently by others ::albeit without the desired magical green color:: that the rule is a basically a catch-all...so now that it's stated & understood, why continue to beat a dead horse? if it's an actual problem worth discussing, then it should have some solutions presented, otherwise, the thread is just spinning its wheels.

The point was to clarify and have a discussion about it. Whilst that has happened to a certain level, more discussion can definitely take place. (Especially since this has not become quite a hostile thread.)

Both of you are a little off. That one case you mention was where the reporter' screenshots were no longer available on a file storage facility - hence he would have to be asked to provide them again. In my experience of sanctions the evidence has been available pretty freely.

As for 1.2's past, present and future: well the thread began with it being described as a "we can do what we want to" rule. Which is partly true. I'd replace the "what we want to" with "whatever may be necessary to make things run more smoothly".

It is not used or even referred to all that frequently. The thread begins by suggesting that it is used "these days" - the most recent example of its threatened use was six weeks ago.

If you want to check your understanding of Rule 1.2, look at its use in the past before that example.

It allows Administrators to sanction people for things detrimental to the collective experience of the game that may not becessarily be covered by the many other rules that are designed with specific game mechanics in mind. Of course that raises the question : "what do we mean by collective experience of the game", but the semantics could go on until the cows come home.

I have yet to see anyone make the case that the rule is somehow flawed in any way. I think that's why discussion of it can appear to be a pretty pointless gesture - we're talking about it in a vacuum.

It is not so much the certain incident in itself, but more the attitude of the Administration saying that they will not provide the sanctioned person with SS. I know, that if I was sanctioned, I would want to see proof, and I would not be the only one in that.

Whilst the most recent example of a threat to it being used was by Hoodlum whenever, it was used within the last week. Feel free to question my use of the phrase "these days" however, since it is meant as a completely objective and non-subjective phrase.

As for discussion, it is here to take place. We cannot fully calculate what discussions and/or what points will be brought up. Hence, this thread continues to exist.


(Feel free to keep the discussions going.)

---

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.