I'm just trying to understand the valid justification for this "new rule", with its "not so harsh" ban punishment. I'm also debating whether or not it’s a good idea, personally these types of things should just be moderated IMO. Banning because you post someone else's words IS overkill.MaryJane said:I do not understand why you are making a fuss over this Vio. antowan has made a simple request and if you choose to ignore the request you will get a 24 hour ban (IMO this is light punishment). I am sure you will not be pleased if you saw your PMs posted for everyone to see.
I'm not making a fuss about it. I am just disagreeing with the concept and asking for clarification for the need, especialy for such harsh punishment.
If the "staff" just wanted to tell us something finish and klaar and not want debate on it then they should put it in a locked thread under announcements where it will not be open for debate. But as it is it is sitting under Forum suggestions and gripes, which I can say is hardly the place to go put an official "rule".
Just looking at posts like these over the last 2-4 months it has become my concern that there are certain individuals who are trying to "drive" for a more autocratically controled enviroment instead of the free MyADSL environment and effectively lock out posts from people they don't like/disagree with by labeling them as "stirrers" or "trolls". As such I’ve kind of made it my personal mission to question any additional form of control and ask the questions "is this really necessary?" or "isn't this over kill?". Now this might not have much to do with "stirrers" and "trolls", but a law like this will probably be used either to ban them or to silence them. In short I’m playing the devils advocate. Maybe my efort is misplaced, but that's the way I feel about this.