Your complete lack of any meaningful response to my defense of your ridiculous assertion pretty much says it all.
My point is far from ridiculous.
Uh huh. So your answer is "No, I didn't read any of your other posts. I made this blanket claim on the basis of a single post". Super.
My post is not aimed at you in particular (and that is stated in my post), it aims to make the point that those seemingly most in favour of these new rules appear to be, if anything, more exposed to them than those questioning the need for them.
Heh, so what ARE you basing your opinions about what might be good or bad for the forum then?
I am basing ideas about what might be good or bad for a forum on what I think might be good or bad for a forum.
Your original response to my post in support of the OP can be summarized as "many of the people supporting sirius' rules are hypocrites, because they're the ones who've been breaking these rules in the past".
The 'in the past' part is an insertion, but, yes, generally that's the point being made, whilst perhaps not hypocritical (it seems like too strong a term) those in favour of the new rules are in danger of falling foul of those new rules as much as the 'ideologues' they seek to drive out of the forum.
Honestly, I fail to see how that's a valid argument in support of keeping this forum unmoderated.
It's not an argument, it's only supportive of an argument, it's only illustrative of a point.
The point is that setting in place limitations that people might find themselves casually in breach of (and here the point that some of those most vocal in their support are themselves culprits becomes illustrative) might have (my own opinion is 'will likely have') consequences that will do more to stymie a healthy and robust community spirit than a more laissez faire approach (but of course not giving free reign to naked abuse).
