>users come and go
Of course, but as we're a fairly small site, it's not at a high enough rate to displace our ingrained culture. The majority we do have are quite proud and vocal, yourself included, and this helps to cement the local culture in newcomers and lurkers alike. For the forseeable future, as long as we stay vigilant, I don't envision this as a problem to worry about.
>chicken and egg
Well, I can see where you'd get that impression. Since we're both unwilling to budge on that front, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.
>disorder is the natural order
Ignoring the platitudinous nature of that statement, I don't see a problem with it. Entropy is a good thing in doses to avoid stagnancy, and when it does escalate (as in your Nigel example), the mods are there to step in.
I know you don't like that idea, but bear with me here, and I'll do my best to address that:
>we need to have a mentality that the mods will not pic up our problems
In ordinary circumstances, with ordinary mods and admins, I would absolutely agree with you, no question about it. But the situation on /mlpol/ is very different, and I'll tell you exactly why that is.
Recall the threads with that annoying cross-boarding Korean anon, more specifically the one where he was shitposted into the Doom Dimension and I had a real hoot and a holler doing it. Right as the moderator decides to put on his capcode, he already had 4 posts made under his ID. He was participating in the thread as a regular anon, same as us.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with small businesses, and it may just be this way where I'm from, but in the ones I frequent, the managerial and senior staff actively participate and banter with the low-level employees, are highly friendly, and interact often with customers. It's friendly, it's courteous, but most importantly, it demonstrates genuine care for the people they serve and work with. It shows that they're right there with us, having the same discussions, making the same threads, all of that.
This distinction is absolutely critical, and it is the only reason I place so much trust in the moderation staff: they are not some disconnected, separate class, as it is with most managerial and business systems, but they're right here with us, doing the same shit we do. Their Venn diagram overlap with us regular users is significant, if not total.
Again, I get your caution, but in this situation, it's simply unwarranted. And the instant they stop being active participants with us, and become a separate, disconnected ruling class, is the instant I'll side with this 'every man for himself' position you espouse.
>On the options I listed off you are a liberal. I have already stated my problems with that view leading to the eventually destruction of the rule because the argument could just as easily be why have the rule if its not used
First off, I've been doing my best to avoid pigeonholing your views on this matter. Since we're actually managing a decent discussion here, I'd appreciate if you offered me the same courtesy, too.
Secondly, I have absolutely no desire to revoke rule 9, I only want to see it amended to reflect our current position on it. Once again, you try to present this as a slippery slope, but I've been very explicit as to the limits I would like to see this extend to. You've done this numerous times now, and it seems to be more of an irrational concern, rather than a pragmatic one.
>My view is more absolutist and I want action now rather then later on someone else's terms that much is true. I'd like for you to state what is wrong with that
All right, here's the fundamental problem.
You're simply too late.
The time to have this discussion passed months ago, when we decided to take the Anonfilly refugees in, get them settled, and integrate them with our board culture. That was when you should have expressed your objections, even more vocally than you are now.
But now, they're a well-adjusted part of who we are, and have been for more than a month. And there's no changing that, now. Nor would I want to.
The solution you are proposing, to purge them after they've integrated with us, made their mark, and gotten along with us, can only lead to one logical outcome.
This is what the local Aussie means, when he says you're being divisive. As we are a small community, we absolutely cannot afford to split hairs over such a relatively small issue. Cohesion is what we need the most of, at this Internet weight class.
You see things from the /pol/ perspective, now let me tell you more about the history of the /mlp/ perspective.
The problem with bumpfest generals there was a direct consequence of user and moderator overreach, of splitting hairs over such relatively insignificant matters. The Scruffening was one of the worst happenings there, and is directly responsible for creating the problem with generals to begin with.
Your implication throughout all of this is that banning them will prevent history from repeating itself. I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. Banning them will cause history to repeat itself.
What you're proposing is guaranteed to trigger a second Scruffening event, and that is the root reason why I will not agree with your determination. Nor will I ever agree with banning content wholesale, just because of a conflict of taste. Outside of being purely egoistic in motive, I've seen what happens when that is tried, and I will never accept it.