Psy said: I can understand basically what you're saying (I don't agree with it, but still), so where exactly do you draw the line? Someone who has been there for 6 months? 12 months? Posted 200 times? How is the average member to know whether or not they can break the rules without retribution?
To this, I say: That depends. I just think people are getting too rule-heavy with this. There should be no "now that I'm THIS old on the forum, I can do THIS and get away with it"; however, I disagree with the fact that a trip up basically seals his fate. Administrative staff knows him; therefore, based on his character, I think exception can be made depending on their ultimate decision.
It's just how I feel about it, like I said. I don't agree with super heavy rule system. Here - maybe this will help explain it a little better, whether you agree or not.
WesM 118 (8:09:20 PM): The crux of my argument:
WesM 118 (8:09:22 PM): "Rules that are meant to apply to everyone should apply to everyone."
Imnotusnit (8:10:07 PM): I don't agree with rules like that anyway, really.
Imnotusnit (8:10:14 PM): I think it should be called SOP.
WesM 118 (8:10:20 PM): We're not arguing whether that rule is right or not!
WesM 118 (8:10:25 PM): That's not the issue.
Imnotusnit (8:10:25 PM): no no.
Imnotusnit (8:10:29 PM): Not that specific rule.
Imnotusnit (8:10:36 PM): The "Rules that apply to everyone" part.
Imnotusnit (8:10:50 PM): Rather, it should be classified as standard operating procedure.
WesM 118 (8:10:57 PM): So...you don't think someone that posts code to crash browsers should be banned?
WesM 118 (8:11:00 PM): ...huh?
WesM 118 (8:11:05 PM): Oh, hahahaha
Imnotusnit (8:11:07 PM): Have you never dealt with SOP?
Imnotusnit (8:11:17 PM): Or had you just not gotten to that yet :P
WesM 118 (8:11:26 PM): No, I hadn't gotten to that part yet. :P
WesM 118 (8:11:32 PM): Hence the "Oh, hahahaha"
Imnotusnit (8:11:32 PM): SOP makes it so that a rulebook has less power than an admin
Imnotusnit (8:11:47 PM): The rules exist, but the admin is the deciding factor
WesM 118 (8:11:56 PM): I agree. And I agree that things should be judged on an individual basis
Imnotusnit (8:11:59 PM): That gives room for said admin to be biased, however...
Imnotusnit (8:12:07 PM): That's why EOFF is (was?) a five headed dragon
WesM 118 (8:12:08 PM): However, judging this as an individual basis, there's no reason not to ban him\
Imnotusnit (8:13:14 PM): If EOFF were the army, Kishi could probably get an article 15 for that.
WesM 118 (8:13:24 PM): ...and what's that?
Imnotusnit (8:13:28 PM): But seeing as how he's been promoted a lot already, we're not gonna treat him like a private
Imnotusnit (8:13:33 PM): his TIS speaks for itself...
Imnotusnit (8:13:43 PM): Therefore, punitive action not including discharge
Imnotusnit (8:13:53 PM): Article 15 is non judicial punishment, basically.
WesM 118 (8:13:58 PM): ...
Imnotusnit (8:14:03 PM): You lose rank, money, do some extra duty, whatever the commander feels like.
WesM 118 (8:14:07 PM): you've been in the service WAY too long.
Imnotusnit (8:14:12 PM): But you don't get dishonorably discharged.
Imnotusnit (8:14:18 PM): No, I've been in the service for half a year
Imnotusnit (8:14:24 PM): I just have to deal with it EVERY day
WesM 118 (8:14:27 PM): xD