User talk:Insineratehymn/UnConstitution
So, the main problems that I have with this are in Section 3. First, I don't think the note about not taking things seriously should-be/needs-to-be in the rules. It isn't really a rule, and no one needs to tell people that. Yes, I know Slashy needed it, but he was an extreme case, and if DG were here he'd remind us all that you can't legislate against malice or stupidity. Second, in we reality we have more than just satire here. Any type of humor can be found within our pages, and there's even some very meta stuff like Zork. Third, there is a place for facts here. A lot of them. That's because being mostly factual is usually a lot funnier than random nonsense. This is something I have to say to noobs ALL THE TIME. Constantly they vandalize good articles that stick close to the facts and then make articles that are no sense. You get the point I am sure, but I have to rant on that because it has caused me headaches in the past. Fourth, there are a lot of us that hate Forest Fire Week with a deadly passion. They indicate that the systems we have aren't working and we want to solve the problem a better way. Writing Forest Fires into the rules is just going to make it harder to dispose of when it is no longer needed. Fifth, ban policy is good, but it should probably just be a stand alone policy page that's linked.---
Rev. Isra (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)00:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
