Chauvin Murder Trial

[Angrboda]

Not at all.  I despise rape apologists.  I'm not defending rape apologism in anyway.  I'm just wondering if Boru's comment doesn't cross the line into content moderation instead of rule enforcement.

Perhaps the reason for having admins and moderators is to guide away from topics that aren't acceptable.  It would be an impossible task to have a rule that covers every possible thing.

Anyway...Boru's comment, and mine a while back, weren't presented as "mod notes" but suggestions.  There's a difference.

Except that Boru then clarified that reports, warnings, and bannings might ensue, making it explicitly something more. In this case, the difference appears negligible. You're engaging in revisionism.

By the way, not having a rule for everything is not a problem until you make it one by making it up on the fly or retroactively punishing behavior. I was banned from slack when it didn't really have any rules other than not being a dick. A staff member who is black took offense to my using the n-word and decided that he didn't like that, so he banned me. As a result of that incident, the forum now has rules against hate speech which didn't seem all that necessary prior to that which might leave someone with the idea that they invented the rule simply to give specific staff a cudgel that they didn't need. This forum never had a problem with hate speech and still doesn't. So why the rule? I have similar concerns about the rules at AD, where the rules largely boil down to the same thing: don't be a dick, which means the staff can discipline you for whatever they feel like disciplining you for. Tiberius at one time emphasized that his vision for the rules was to eliminate the subjectivity in applying the rules, to emphasize codifying actions which were subject to discipline, instead of leaving it in the realm of a matter of judgement or opinion. I think that was a good goal.