Well, as the officials storm off, rather chidlishly slamming the door on discussion, quoting the rules as they go, I have this to say.
When someone is telling you that in their opinion, (which is still allowed here), that a rule is wrong, there is absolutely no point in quoting them the rule that they think, in their opinion, is wrong.
If that was what happened, I'd be inclined to agree. What I responded to was:
Heh heh, it would be interesting to try to find such a "rule." Then everyone could see how vague and subjective it is.
There is often much lamentation that staff responses are "sarcastic" or "not constructive", as if we are coming into these discussions and ruining these earnest points with off-hand obnoxiousness. There's much complaint that certain users are being treated differently or targeted by staff. And yet when someone says pretty much flat out that they don't feel that a rule even exists or is vague, and it would be interesting to try to find such a "rule" (with the quotation marks further casting into doubt its' existence), what would you have me do? I showed where the rules could be found, quoted the specific one relevant to the question being asked. And then I said that if the goal was to find out how far over the line one could go (my response to the whole 100, 110, 130 discussion earlier), we couldn't help.
And so getting back to your words:
"When someone is telling you that in their opinion, (which is still allowed here), that
a rule is wrong, there is absolutely no point in quoting them the rule that they think, in their opinion, is wrong."
If you think that's what's happening here, at least on my part, you're factually wrong. Mike Franks in the last three days has posted six different times in this thread his complaint about the "line", going so far as to say:
"Of course, I'm smart enough to know it is purely imaginary. It is whatever a boss feels like on that day. If he had a fight with his wife, look out everybody! If he got laid, anything goes."
But none of that, of course, is what prompted my post. I didn't feel like there was anything constructive that could be said to counter that, because it's all just a case of one man's opinion being thrust upon us over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over. The fact that I don't find any of that constructive or trying to elevate discussion is my personal opinion, but as Mike and others have made abundantly clear, they have the right to their opinion, and I as well have the right to THEIR opinion. Anything else is killing discussion, so rather than bother, I let it go.
But when the assertion is made that the rule doesn't even exist? Yes, that is absolutely the time to quote the rule.
Obviously I'm stating that for the popcorn eaters, since officialdom has left the stage.
Not yet, after all.
PS:
Yes, it's forbidden to discuss about GM decisions on the forum, because 1) regarding moderation decision, that would just be threads lasting for weeks like this one with diverging opinions, 2) regarding cheating, the less information cheaters can get, the more chance we have to catch them.
Except I'm not talking about cheating, nor does a process whereby people can talk about decisions need to be one that goes on for weeks. Though I agree its very difficult to get a response from a GM that actually involves them answering more than one point at a time because they like to cherry pick the part they can answer sarcastically or wittily and ignore anything that involves some thought. Or perish the thought, further discussion.
There are two parts to his response. If you're not cheating, it doesn't mean you can discuss moderation, just like if it's not a moderation discussion, it doesn't make talking about cheating okay.
I respect your opinion. I felt like you deserved an answer. There it is. I sincerely hope not to participate in this t