How so? The rules are already clearly not enforceable (remember how the last rule says that "these rules might be wrong" and "dont rule lawyer"?) and the more concise it is, the harder it is to get around it.Honestly, that just makes it easier to evade and break them.
Tank failed to mention other places where Zman and Lucifer failed their moderator duties. Also, Tank himself failed his moderator duties by unjustly banning Durf (what this entire thread is about).Are you saying the mods did wrong? Tank already pointed out where Z-man and Lucifer did overreact
So let me get this straight. None of this is new to any of you guys. If it isn't, and you think you are right/I'm wrong about it, why can't you invalidate my arguments? If you've had all of this information all along, it should be easy to point out exactly where my argument falls apart. So why hasn't anyone done it? There have been plenty of people that have put time into making multiple posts, but none of them have invalidated what I have said.So, to me at least, it seems you are just bringing back up stuff that has been long since dealt with....
What is new here?
Nobody said the mods are perfect. You have called them out on something that they have already admitted their own fault in. I just don't get it. What is the point?
There are things that I have called them out on that they have not admitted, such as not letting Durf defend himself. The point? I've already posted why I'm doing this, but for the last time, part of the reason why I'm doing this is to educate the community. You don't think they need to be educated about this? The large amount of unsupported misinformation you guys have told me in this thread says otherwise.