New Rule: No Personal Attacks

[Autumnlicious]

Actually it is. It is called flaming, which is in your rules.

Only since this new rule. We took out the rule against insulting people (flaming) ages ago; had the vote and decided to put parts of it back in, and since that disaster of a decision, we have had to put the rule regarding flaming back in.

It only went to hell recently, and I must ask - is it wise to make sweeping changes to the whole of something despite the stability over a long time in the face of sudden abberrency?

It has been often noted that "A few bad apples ruin it for the rest of us" - might I note that this may be an overreaction or a dramatic change that would have better been served with a little bit more time and policing?

One does not need big rules to change, merely an increase in the policing of current rules.

And we in the States know that outright prohibition of certain things when a long standing system goes haywire in a short space of time works out.

Just a cautionary note to avoid the silliness of the past.

---

I'd like to appeal to calming down. For the members to calm down and the administrative team take it easier. Neither side really wants fire and brimstone for the other and neither wants to be heavy handed.

I appeal to both to restrain themselves on their threats of immediate near authoritarian enforcement or flat out trolling, name calling and demonization.

Calm down. Take it easy.