Board Thread:Voting For New Rules/@comment-18063949-20140516161537/@comment-24849627-20140517032334

Ok, I understand where you're coming from HMccoy. I do agree that my idea has flaws and that majority rules may be a wiser decision.

Your second option

'2) "Yes, you are right. I had not checked the rules of the wiki, voted upon by active members, which were clearly linked to from our main page. I just went there and you are right, one-letter edits are considered to be against the spirit of the community and are not to be done for the sole purpose of getting points on the achievement. I apologize and I will not do it again."'

did bring an idea to me though. What are we going to say the punishments for breaking the rules are? I assume these are either already set up or should be set up using the same voting system as with the rules. I would also like to point out that some rules are much worse to break than others, e.g. posted one post that was random and off topic (spam), vs impersonated an admin for 2 months and deceived most of the community. Because of this I think we should either give each rule a specific consequence if it is broken, OR we could grade the rules from most severe to least severe and group them into their respected grade levels, from there we simply assign consequences to the groups.

Both ideas have pros and cons that I could list in a mile long post but I would prefer simply hearing what you guys think. Which one do you prefer or is there a better idea you have or do you simply think they both suck but don't have a better idea.

Imma sign this all fancy like,

Aaron.Hunter (talk) 03:23, May 17, 2014 (UTC)