Trollheart

I'm awake again! Hel-loooooo world!
But the thing is, that's like someone coming into, say, an office environment where everyone slags the **** out of each other. Martin over there is a ginger so gets stick, Abdul is a devout muslim so we tease him, Sherry is a bit of a party girl and wears miniskirts so we all make the odd lewd comment. They all understand we are not being crass or racist and they accept and even enjoy this attention. And so on.

Now, into this office comes a new guy, Joe. Joe is not aware of the dynamic in the office. He's on work experience. Without bothering to get to know the people he's working with, Joe decides that everyone here is sexually harassing Sherry, trampling on Abdul's religious freedom and mocking Martin. He reports them all and asks for rules to be set in place so that this does not happen again.

What do you think the boss does?

The point is, that in a community such as this, you need, as a new member, to get to know people and how they operate. Batty is a prime example. At first, you'd think he was a dick, the way he goes on, but after a while, if you take the time to talk to him, you come to realise that he is in fact a dick. But he's our dick, and we know how to deal with him. Also, Batty would tend not to (I think) rib newcomers, as he doesn't know how that will be taken. He gives us **** (me mostly) because he knows I understand the context it's made in and I don't mind. Someone new might take offence, under your new rules, report him and the mods would have to infract him. Keep in mind, too, that this may be a member who has no intention of sticking around for long. So why does he get to say what happens instead of just digging in and seeing how the land lies?

To be honest, if you're talking about people who can't be bothered to stay around and see how people are, or talk to them if they offend them, then I'd say let them go, but I would not change the whole system for the sake of a minority.

But you can't have it both ways. What you are proposing is an enforcement of the rules than cannot be described any way other than draconian. It leaves little or no room for judgement and no leeway: the rules are absolute and must be applied. That is going to result in the kind of situation described above.
Well I gave you an example, but if you have to actually see it http://www.musicbanter.com/members-j...ml#post1500511

Now would that be allowed? Because it's in context, used in fun but it is very graphic. Yes, I could have spoilered the pictures but that would be sort of defeating the whole idea of the article (Satan does not use Spoilers!)

or there's my review of "Nazis at the Centre of the Earth", a stupid B-movie but which contains some really graphic gory pictures, one or two of which I used but spoilered. Given that both are integral to the articles, is there leeway within the rules to allow this? Can it be an unwritten rule "no gore or porno unless instrinsic to the writing"? I mean, some of Batty's posts in his comic book journal could technically be said to be porno. So where do you draw the line, and who draws it?

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018