[split] Discussion About Potential Rule Change and Staff Action

[Reforged]

Sadly, the damage done by the member whose behavior was deemed objectionable was slight compared to the damage to the community from the resulting acrimonious debates which followed, including the departure of several valued, long-time members.)


Anyway, just my humble opinion. For what it's worth.


Form follows function, says the organizer
and turns himself into a paperclip,
into a vacuum cleaner,
into a machinegun.
Function follows analysis
but the forebrain
is only an owl in the tree of self.
One third of life we prowl in the grottos of sleep
where neglected worms ripen into dragons
where the spoilt pencil swells into an oak
and the cows of our early sins are called home chewing their cuds
and turning the sad faces of our childhood upon us.
Come back and scrub the floor, the stain is still there,
come back with your brush and kneel down
scrub and scrub again
it will never be clean.
Fantasy unacted sours the brain.
Buried desires sprout like mushrooms on the chin of the morning.
The will to be totally rational
is the will to be made out of glass and steel:
and to use others as if they were glass and steel.

— Marge Piercy, Song Of The Fucked Duck, excerpt

Explain to me how making a rule so that if someone changes a large number of threads to one specific subject in a small period of time they be warned could be damaging. I don't see anyway someone could exploit that rule if it were properly defined or any legitimate reason someone could object to it. On the contrary, I think it would ensure that the right to discuss a wide variety of subjects is one that is properly maintained and enforced.