should discussions of strategies for avoiding infraction points be infractable?

[© Tweed the Younger]

of course notable because this was the "straw" that did jmfcst in; and has also resulted in numerous infractions of Young Tweed, and assuredly others.

[Beet]

Were these discussions conducted in the spirit of undermining the rules, or clarifying the rules?

[© Tweed the Younger]

you're saying Moderators take upon themselves the task of identifying an underlying "spirit" within posts?  that the line between an infractable and non-infractable post is metaphysical?

[Beet]

I think there's an unavoidable amount of subjectivity inherent in rulemaking, yes.

[Bacon King]

you're saying Moderators take upon themselves the task of identifying an underlying "spirit" within posts?  that the line between an infractable and non-infractable post is metaphysical?

I can only speak for myself (and I don't really do the infraction point thing anymore anyway, but still), but I've certainly always taken context and intent into consideration when moderating.

[Vasall des Midas]

I move we infract BK for discussing such questions outside the moderator board.

[Joe Republic]

The only acceptable strategy for avoiding infraction points is to not troll in the first place.

[© Tweed the Younger]

I got infracted for trolling for basically asking this same question Young Tweed.

I considered this, but I have enough of a balance (-24) to run the risk vs. bring the issue into the collective consciousness.

[© Tweed the Younger]

The only acceptable strategy for avoiding infraction points is to not troll in the first place.

rulingideology.exe

[Sibboleth]

(and I don't really do the infraction point thing anymore anyway, but still)

Good man.

[Torie]

Since it appears that one does not actually need to hit 100 points, to be on the irreversible way out, one problem with discussing such strategies is that they may not work, and lead some gamer astray and into the rocks, and then into ban-dom. Having said that, I received no infractions points when discussing the matter, although it was in the "context" of bitching about the loophole, rather than celebrating its existence. So I guess BK has a point.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I'd just like to point out that there was no "straw".  He would've likely been banned by Memorial Day with or without infracting that post.

[So the Heroes Fall]

I got a 10 point infraction just for discussing with jmfcst an obvious loophole in the system that would be blatantly obvious to anyone intelligent enough to calculate delegate numbers that I didn't even say that I planned on doing it (nor did I).

Also I fail to see how "I probably shouldn't post on these boards until some of my points fall off" (jmfcst's last infracted post) is any more "trolling" than things like "I can't say what I really think here because I'd get death points" that posters say all the time.