I've only been playing for a few days, so forgive me if this needs to go to a different section. During those few days, I've noticed some things that I found unjust. They were reminiscent of the kid in North Carolina (I think) who was suspended for biting his breakfast pastry into the shape of a firearm. I have some suggestions that I hope are, at the very least, noticed by at least one supermod. I. A common sense rule for everyone including staff. While the aforementioned kid did break the zero tolerance policy on depicting firearms when he bit his pastry into the shape of a firearm, the school used zero common sense. Let's say that I want to discuss a song with my servermates. "Wherever I May Roam" by Metallica? Perfectly acceptable. "Du Hast Mich" by Rammstein, even though it is a very popular song among metalheads here in the US? Currently unacceptable. A common sense rule would make actual conversations in non-English languages still unruly but conversing in English about things such as songs with foreign-language titles would be permissible without any form of warning or punishment by staff, supermods, etc. whatsoever. II. Allowance of profanity that isn't directed towards anyone. You fell down a mineshaft into lava and lost a diamond pickaxe you spend EC$500,000 on? This rule would allow swearing (except for excessive swearing, such as "[censored] piece of [censored] [censored] [censored] me [censored] etc etc etc"). ExampleUsername123 just killed you in a survival game. This rule would not permit you to call ExampleUsername123 any vulgar terms. III. Nonfavourance (pretend that's a word) of sides. I'll explain. The following is a true story, but nicknames and usernames have been censored. Let's say someone asks me a trivia question and I happen to say that a certain religious figure is always the answer. I will be warned by any witnessing supermods and/or staff or whatnot that I'm not allowed to say stuff like that. But then let's say I tell a joke. ExampleName123 responded with "oh my <religious figure's name> that was funny." No one really seems to care that he just took the name of that specific religious figure in vain. <end true story> From that example, we can conclude that my made-up word of "nonfavourance" (or "nonfavorance" for people who don't use British English spellings) can be defined as "not favouring one side over another when similar or identical infarctions of rules are committed" or something like that. Nonfavourance of sides would cause either a) both myself and ExampleName123 to be warned about mentioning religious material, or b) both myself and ExampleName123 would not be warned about mentioning religious material. These are just some ideas I've brainstormed. Feel free to add the list, or if you have the power to, feel free to use ideas from this list.
