@Trotsky , you've got a legal background of some sort, right?
As someone who has received several infractions (some of which I'm assuming you'd dispute), do you think it would be a good idea for the forum to employ an objective standard in enforcing forum rules (e.g., as they do in criminal procedure)? One of the problems is see is that nobody is 100% sure where the limits are, except to stay away from "racism," "violence," "flaming," etc. Those are vague terms, and the definitions sometimes depend on subjective factors (e.g., is it "racism" if you aren't attempting to inflame racial tensions, but nonetheless do, using otherwise permissible language?). The moderators make determinations on the fly, and it varies wildly between mods, and sometimes with the mod's personal views/mood. You can even get banned for using the report button improperly. IMO it would be easier for posters to conform their posting behavior to the rules if the rules themselves were more oriented toward objective factors. There's either a violation, or no violation—not this wishy washy standard we have now.
On the other hand, there's an argument that making the rules too technical would make them inadministrable, and that moderating the forum would become impractical. But IMO objective rules would actually be easier to enforce, and easier to follow. What's your hot take?
