Talk:Suggested New Chat Rule/@comment-7706473-20140531121718

There's a saying in my family - the more you need to show you have control of a situation, the less you actually have.

We could say - well, it was the fault of bringing over people from the other wiki; or we could say it was the fault of an increasingly young userbase; or the fault of stars that were not right, or perhaps of someone, or severals someones, having a really bad day. Master - I feel that your desire to protect this wiki is good, but the problem is, people come and go. And if what they see of the place is an armed camp - and an armed camp that, as you pointed out, can't really do much of anything in the larger scale of things - they're going to be more angry, and more justifiably so, the next time they visit.

My recommendation is - if someone is being a tool and it is impossible to ban them for whatever reason, that everyone simply leaves chat. No - seriously; it would be a good time to read some stories, perhaps, or finish one that the author was 'always meaning to'; and it gives time to wait for heads to cool down and the instigators to get bored and wander off. Just because an admin isn't present doesn't mean action of one kind or another cannot be taken.

I can't really say I'm a good example - I've been very tempted to ban a few people in my short tenure in administration! But I guess the questions I'd ask are:

Do these new rules contribute to the wiki?

Are they fair and impartial?

Do they concentrate power unfairly?

Why can we not afford another argument?

Really though, I just want to argue everything Bugashi said, a thousand-times over; I'm glad you've read those words, and realize you've probably mulled things over yourself, but hopefully this gives a bit more to think on, too.