While this topic was made to discuss how it's to be handled from here-on, you changed the tense to past tense to reflect on how things used to be. Do you see how you jumping to different arguments within the same subject?
Now you're quoting mostly how people feel presently about it (many of them incomplete conclusions, like Cain, that need more room for discussion, if not other portions which are outright cherry picked if not grabbed at random), which, while that fits the theme of your OP, how does it relate to our discussion of past policy that you've been putting into question as if it never existed and was never discussed within literally multiple topics alongside other matters of policy? You were even there back then making a stink about how useless said topics were while mocking my effort to try to figure out protocol, now you say that just straight up never happened?
The comments about the past reflect people's current understanding of the rules, which don't seem to align with your interpretation. No one seemed to have the same understanding that you did. But if I missed something (cherry picked?) just post the comments that confirm an agreement with your view.
You never presented the topic as a discussion - you accused the mods of changing the rules behind people's backs, which isn't true and is kind of dirty.
I posted those comments alongside people's go forward stance to summarize perspectives, which mostly seem to align wth the current views the other mods had.
Granted.. I wasn’t around in the past, but my understanding of the dox rule as Inq and Tony put it.. is based off what I’ve consistently been told it is by people on SC.
...your understanding literally changed during the course of the conversation in the mod chat today.
The title of TCs post should have been more along the lines of “What’s everyone’s understanding of the dox rule?” And then continue from there.
You really mean to police my titles now? I tried those topic titles on repeat if not asking what they want it to be and people just ignore it. When I say what was actually going on in a way that shows people mean business, people are more likely to actually respond instead of just ignore it. Even with this we have people like "So it's eight pages in, what are we talking about..?" for the other topic.
Before I insisted on making a topic it was just you guys mulling over what you wanted it to be. It began as "What was it" but quickly changed into "How should it be".
In the mod group there was no one trying to change rules, it was a discussion about what the rule was. I’ve not read through that thread to see responses, yet.
As someone who's new to the forum and barely understands it, do you see yourself picking safety or freedom for this forum?
For every safety measure we add into the structure here, it'll be that much less SC. We have people already coming on here complaining about how the drama's been weaker, do we really want that kind of sterility that'd just make this like any other forum?
"At your own risk" was a theme here for so long. If people are softening up then it's about what the rule ought to become, not what the rule was.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
