stvrtg at gmail.com
Sun Oct 4 19:46:47 UTC 2009
FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> there would also be users who would find ways around [Civil], ways to
> offend, upset, annoy, provoke, or distress, that they could claim
> wasn't strictly "against" the rules.
But a great number of people do these things and get away with it
within the current climate. I can offer examples, if you like. Are
you're really just saying that IAR allows only the *good* dicks to act
> We saw that with "civil POV warriors".
Who is the implied opposition here? "Incivil NPOV warriors?" It is an
intrinsic understanding within NPOV that everyone has a POV. Perhaps
you are referring to some invisible policy that thinks that admins,
Arbcom, etc. *can (thus should, and thus do)* somehow always act with
> IAR guarantees that no matter how sneaky their evasion, we
> can say to someone "yes you did follow the strict rules.
> But you're still not following the spirit of them."
Ah. So, putting these together, you are talking about "Pencil laws"
being necessary to subvert the "sneaky use of Civil discourse." Those
damn pesky Civilitarians.
More information about the WikiEN-l