[Googi]

Originally Posted by p2p_Sir_Link

There is no need.

Then what need is there to ask me for a definition?

Originally Posted by p2p_Sir_Link

What is correct can only be determined in the eyes of the beholder.

No, that's only what a person believes is correct. Facts are something that exist external to the individual.

Originally Posted by p2p_Sir_Link

Do you believe everyone is hardwired with the same set of values as you are, and therefore any deviation from your values in incorrect?

This is the only conclusion I can be led to believe. Enforcing a rule that does not exist is not incorrect.

I did not say that it is "incorrect." My post contains zero moral judgments. What I do say is that it privileges opinions based on who has them rather than whether or not they are factually correct. Whether or not that's "morally incorrect" is a subjective thing.

Originally Posted by p2p_Sir_Link

I can't go around defecating in swimming pools because there is no rule saying I cannot. There is nothing even close to saying I cannot do this. However, if I am intentionally doing so, what standing do you think my argument would have that it does not break the rules and therefore, since I paid 3 dollar admission into the pool, I have the absolute right to do it?

What kind of pool is it that has no rule against this?

Originally Posted by p2p_Sir_Link

You reference ghost statistics, making wild claims as to what the majority is and the like. Provide some accurate numbers, not just ones you pull out of your ass based on arbitrary guidelines.

I speak of the majority in terms of the "majority" cited by moderators when they defend forum policies that are unpopular with the active users. They cite a majority of less-active members that do not care because they do not come in contact with forum moderation. It is this "majority" that I am talking about.

Originally Posted by p2p_Sir_Link

I am willing to guess that many subscribers read the forums without registering an account because their Graal account is not initially set to work on the forum, and thusly never bother to register.

They would be counted in the "apathetic majority" - the majority that do not care because they do not come into contact with forum moderation.

The posters on the forum do not determine what content is allowable, simply because it does not offend those who are directly involved.[/quote]

Where do I suggest that they do or even should?

Originally Posted by p2p_Sir_Link

Graal has a reputation to protect, and it is not in the slightest bit unrealistic to believe that this community is driving potential subscribers away.

I myself have stated more than once (though I do not mention it in this particular post) that forum rules should be written with profit in mind. It is Unixmad who disagrees with this suggestion.

Originally Posted by p2p_Sir_Link

Since you wish to push everything to the limit, I suggest this be handled with a moderator elasticisty clause, that allows them to enforce whatever they please as they feel nescessary.

That way, they'd only be enforcing everything within the rules, which is what you want.

It appears you do not understand the "elasticity clause," it merely allows the moderators to make moderations that do not enforce the rules, it doesn't mean that those moderations somehow become moderations that enforce the rules.