Here's my stance on the problem:
Political discussion should be allowed, to an extent. I believe that The Flood can handle political discussion at a mature level without too much immaturity. I believe that there may be many mature discussions in The Flood if such a rule were passed.
However, religion is simply out of the question. If you regulate that forum, then you would know how all of the atheists are just "lolchristianity"-ing all the Christians, as well as any other religions. I do not think The Flood is yet ready for that level of discussion, AB.
Posted by: Insane AlphaBeta
Posted by: ctjl96
Which one?
Posted by: Insane AlphaBeta
yup, multiple times, while i think one spacific rule should be changed, i still read them.
the no politics/religious discussion rule,
here is my issue,
you can't truly get rid of a problem unless you get rid of the source, banning/warning the people who participate in these kinds of threads doesn't sole anything, and results in unneeded bans, all it does is create issues,
threads are made for discussion, i understand why this rule was made, but i don't understand the need to warn/ban people who simply participate, mainly the ones who do not cause any trouble within the thread, if people flame in the threads then yes, a warning/ban is needed for those specific people, but banning/warning everyone within the thread is nonsense, becuase all they are doing is banning/warning people who did not cause any trouble to begin with.
that is the problem i have with the rule, its not the rule itself, but the details, if someone makes a thread people should have the freedom to discuss it, if they flame, troll etc etc, then yes action should be taken, if they don't violate any rules, they should be fine.