Board Thread:General Wiki Discussion/@comment-11333115-20131013165852/@comment-4750363-20131015223458

If you're going to use the sex talk thing as an argument for making rules without anybody's consent, I'll let you know that most of the Moderators and Administrators had expressed a thinking of sexual talk being out of control during the time it was being planned and done.

I didn't make it only taking in account my own whims. I made the rule itself taking in account most of the Moderators and Administrators' opinions, although they weren't asked directly, they DID express that something should be done.

Including you. In fact: yours was the very first one I had gathered that expressed that it was out of control.

And what did you do here?

You made a grand total of six rules that came absolutely out of nowhere. Nobody in the Moderator or Administrator team seemed to have heard of it, nor considered it was needed. In fact, at least half of the team is pretty pissed off that this happened without nobody else hearing about it.

And if we're going to use the "regular users agree", then I'll let you know as well that there has been several instances of the regular users not agreeing, yet the rules happen. And that was because we, the Administrator and Moderator team, knew they were needed, despite what the general public thought, and it was stuff that it was discussed between us Administrators and Moderators as well. Examples being the caps rule, the reducing the punishment to slurs/racial stuff to one day instead of a week, and the sexual rule itself.

So why the sudden need to make the opposite happen? Why to suddenly have the public's opinion to matter so much to you?

Problems already started, as I told you, and some regular members has seen as well. And if the "no more instant bans" rule keeps existing, it'll continue. That rule, combined with all of this, will only attract trouble.