Thread:Grizzhly/@comment-15895329-20170909175034/@comment-15895329-20170909212406

^Correction: I called the STATEMENT asinine. There is a difference between calling a statement asinine and the person. And it WAS an asinine statement. I don't care who it came from, it was. That's not insulting the person, it's insulting the argument, which deserves to be insulted.

I also think that saying my remarks are "no better" than what you described above shows a bad sense of proportion on your part, frankly. Calling an argument (not a person), asinine is not the same as bombarding all of the admins collectively with a torrent of bitterness.

That all of the admins believe in a blanket ban based on flimsy/faulty/non-existent reasoning is fairly discouraging to hear, honestly. So far, the only arguments I've heard for it are:

Slippery slope: Argumentative Fallacy

Could lead to over-speculation and WMGs (Wild Man Guessing): Easily avoided by "locking" the page until further notice, or just making a rule of allowing only the concrete facts rather than speculation. Seems like a simple solution to me.

Again, this idea of a blanket ban based on shaky grounds doesn't ring true with me. The admins can feel free to disagree with me, but I just fail to see the wisdom in the decision. To me it seems like an excessive response to a problem.