Quote:
Originally Posted by synkr0nized
GSo as I read you're post there was a little bit of "Dude, what the fuck can we do that we didn't, or at least think we did, to try to approach a more optimal setting?" And if I kicked back because of that when it sounds like I shouldn't have, all right, my bad I guess?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solid Snake
...But, yeah, that probably won't happen. And the Rule of Law has its own pitfalls, that I've kind of glossed over, but that merit mentioning as reasons that this probably won't happen.
|
I think I was fairly evenhanded about the likelihood that the Rule of Law 'ideal' that I talked up throughout most of my post was, in fact, unreasonable to apply as a practical matter.
Having said that, I'll concede that phrasing the 'compromise' solution as something the Mods should do "at the very least, and if nothing else" was poor wording.
I still think that a 'Rule of Law' system would ideally work better -- even if the explicit context of these forums -- but remember, I'm a
lawyer. I'm always going to have that personal bias, and my solutions will often look to the Rule of Law as the ideal exemplar of "the way things should be" because that's what Law School has drilled into my head for three years.
I still believe the system I advocated has its merits, and I'd still argue for it passionately if I felt there was a chance in hell of it being supported. Insofar as it almost certainly won't happen, I'm not like,
angry over it failing or anything. It essentially constitutes a personal recommendation that I thought would at least conjure up some discussion, and it served that purpose well, if nothing else.
What I
personally think I botched most was the first and last sentences -- I was trying to be humorous with some half-serious, half-joshin'
"Don't ban me, oh Mod overlords!" humor and it just doesn't flow well with the serious and complimentary tone in the rest of the post.