Forum:The Two Rules

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > The Two Rules
Note: This topic has been unedited for 4164 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Since I'm not keen on simply adding to the mess below, and since I think a lot of people have formalized their opinions throughout said discussions, I'd like to propose the following:

The Two Rules are enough to guide our hands as admins.

(We can bicker about the exact wording/format elsewhere.)
  • Agree Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 14:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Enthusiasm. --KATIE!! 17:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oui oui --Spin 18:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Basically (since I wrote them). Though the commentary (mine, Famine's, the list of block times) is useful too. Call the Two Rules the constitution and the rest is malleable. Note also I derived the Two Rules from observation and am pleased Chronarion agreed with them - David Gerard 00:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed, with minor trepidation. I'd still be comfortable with some sort of angry list of rules or common offenses (for the purpose of pointing at.) However, this works for most things just fine.--ShroomsShroom!Gay2Sir Flammable KUN Prince%21.gif (Na Naaaaa...)Gay2Shroom!Shroomirror 20:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed on the 2 rules as stated: a succinct summary of what Uncyclopedia has been striving (and should continue to strive) for. --DW III CUNOUN 03:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Commentary on the two Rules

I agree with DG's eloquently stated position above that his Two Rules are good as a constitutional base. As Flammable pointed out, some admins won't be confortable without more explicit guidelines. I fought this battle on-and-off for a week, and I think I really see the beauty of just two short rules. If #2 didn't include "rules-lawyering makes you an unfunny dick", the two wouldn't be enough. With that brilliant inclusion, they cover a solid 95% of what we get irritated about here.

If we do need a more detailed list, I'd suggest a list formatted along the lines of "Recently, people have been banned for violating Rule #1 by doing the following..." My reasoning here is that if we create a "the following actions will you get banned" list, we negate the flexiability and simplicity of the Two Rules. If we give examples of how people have violated the rules, it doesn't lend itself to be a mechanism for rules-lawyering. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 23:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal tools