[Zero]

*Edited because I got one of the names wrong - sorry*
BR-

I think you did the right thing here. It is unfortunate that some in the forum don't like each other and even more unfortunate that they seem to seek each other out to demonstrate their dislike for all to see.

I don't think there is any logic in the claim that the letter of the law must be absolute or the law is meaningless. No system of actual jurisprudence functions that way - there are interpretations of the law, precedents, case-law, etc. All these are ways of saying that a given community has rules but always applies those rules to a given situation in ways that are sensitive to the particulars of that situation.

What is really at stake here - I think - is whether we want to put the power of interpreting the rules and applying them to a given situation in the hands of the moderators. In other words are the mods to be the judges who decide these questions. I think the only logical answer is 'yes.' The other alternatives are: 1) Allow the wronged party to decide if a rule was broken. In this case we would allow Cheeba to decide that the unpleasant things said about him are a violation and, in effect, allow him to ban Dep. Two problems with this - 1) it would be too intensely subjective (I mean I could take offense at being called a "silly monkey" if I were in a particularly bad mood and then demand that the person be banned even though I have called myself a monkey on many occassions (though never silly - hmm). . . and 2) in practical terms this would probably end up with everyone being banned (hell, i might even ban myself). A second alternative would be to allow each person to decide for themselves if they did or did not violate the rules - so in this case Dep would decide if he was in violation. . I think this one is obviously unworkable and would lead us back to the days of endless STFU NOOB posts *shudders*

The only viable alternative to the dilemma is to have some neutral third party decide on rule violations. In our configuration those are mods. The only way I could see to improve this situation (if people really really feel certain mods are being unfair) would be to have occassional 'elections' where, perhaps a certain mod could be given a vote of 'no confidence.'

But, in principle, it seems to me that BR is the mod and in my experience is fair and reasonable in her judgments. So I give my full vote of confidence and my genuine hope that people can either get along or at least stay out of each other's way.

Peace out!