UDWiki talk:Open Discussion/Ignore all rules

Discussion

Theres no real need for anything like this.
Why? Because we dont actually have very many rules. Unless you impersonate, spam, break a few specific page guidelines, shit up the admin pages, or vandalise, we dont actually give a shit. You could flat out accuse people of bestiality, necrophilia, and a strange combination of the two brought to a whiole new level of disgusting by shooting fresh holes in the carcass for your use with a shotgun and we cant do anything to stop it, though you can take it to arbies.
Thus the only possible reason for this kind of thing would be to empower those who wish to abuse their administrative abilities. The reason we have to file requests to have things done is simple: To enable a form of peer review, and give a chance, however small it may prove to be, for someone to object to an action if there is a valid reason for it which we may not have necessarily thought of.
Also, spirit of the rules has been abused so often on this wiki it is, to be frank, insane. Its used to excuse outright violations simply because of personal concerns regarding either the matter of the persons involved. We had vista rule not vandalism on a Suggestions rule 10 violation simply because he did not agree with the rule, which was written intentionally to punish people for making such suggestions, and was written in such a way that if defined such actions as vandalism. He then walked on the following misconduct case, simply because no one wanted to touch him, and chose instead to apply an inapplicable guideline to the case to get him off. And i get called a wikilawyer sometimes. I may be guilty of a little dabbling here and there, but the heights of crap i have seen from some sysops, the most blatant of them being boxy, especially of late. He isnt even trying to hide it anymore. What this would do is give all the demonstrably incompetent sysops exactly what they need to perpetuate the cycle of popularity through official wiki law. They are already doing it, what with everyone walking on trivial to major cases based on public perception of them, and those few less than popular users getting crucified for the smallest of infractions, or even just coming close. There is absolutely no need to give sysops this kind of power. They should bloody well obey the rules and guidelines that cover the use of their powers. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

IAR has a good place here in the wiki, and it can be used not only by sysops but by the common user too. Actually, it HAS been used by the common user, in the form of the unjustified vote. The rules say you can't vote without providing reason, still several users simply cast their vote and nothing more. IAR is not an excuse for a user to do whatever he wants, but to act towards the good of the community without having to go through bureaucracy. Anyone who doesnt like said actions can simply ask the user why he protected, deleted, moved, yada yada, an article.

Take for example my recent change to A/G. It was a really small edit, granted all users the right to ask for their own ban while providing ground for sysops to ban them. It didnt have to go through A/PD, and it didnt. Once a user found my edit in the page, he questioned me about it, and i explained my reasons to do so. Was i power hungry ? Was i abusing my admin powers ? Heck no. I was acting on the good interest of the community. This is a fine example of IAR at work.

The News page... i moved all 2007 news to an archive, and protected the page, the same way News/2005 and News/2006 were protected. If both previous archive pages were protected, shouldnt the most recent one ALSO be protected ? Requesting it on A/PT would only delay a work i myself could do. I choose to ignore the rules and protect it. Was i abusing my powers again ? Wasnt i acting on the behalf of the community ? Being brought to A/M did granted me another Misconduct rule, but all involved agreed that it was nothing worthy for me to be punished. So i was wrong... and right at the same time ? Add another good example of IAR being used in this very same week.

Abuse of powers can only be a concern when one uses his powers to follow an agenda, for it's own personal gains. I could say you were abusing your powers when you warned/banned <insert name of a person you dont like in here>, but in most cases i too wished to see <insert name of a person you dont like in here> banned, and didnt move an inch to frame you when you actually did it, instead i moved several inches to free you from misconduct. Heck, even i was trying to get rid of nali, and i am glad we didnt make it... the guy is a good user, and perhaps will be a sysop in the future (like, in 2012).

But i must agree with something, perhaps we dont need IAR. All we need is to follow some good ole Common Sense. If we all follow some good common sense, IAR will be already part of our rules. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 11:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I just assume that obeying the rules is selective. The common precedent is to ignore the rules when it is perceived to be the betterment of the community. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 13:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So is rule enforcement selective too? There's no shortage of controversy here on the wiki (though mainly it's among a select few) - but aren't you just asking for exceptions, abuses and an exponential increase in drama?

Here is an utterly ridiculous parallel by way of illustration: last night on Law & Order a guy bought a kidney for his son who needed one. It's against the law to buy body parts because you'd create this crazy black market for them that would undermine the donor process - yadda yadda - CHAOS would ensue. So they had to arrest this guy who was just trying to save his kid's life, and they threw away the kidney because it had been purchased - a perfectly good kidney. They had to or else the system would break down. While anyone could see the guy was just trying to save the kid's life, that individual life was not worth destroying they entire system that saves many lives.

Heh - so I imagine that your rule applied in that circumstance would have said, "Give the kid the kidney." and brought the system to collapse. How would you prevent that from happening here on the wiki, addmittely on a much much less preposterous or consequential basis?--Squid Boy 13:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying that there are some cases where the rules have been ignored in the past for the spirit of the rule. If it's something simple like a protection or a move that would be done anyway, why force them to go through unnecessary procedures. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 13:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Key difference from your RL example is that no one might die if i protect, move or delete a page or ban a user without going through the proper channels, and that all these actions can be undone with bad consequences for me. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and since no one is enforcing this policy, I would say that rule enforcement is selective, as you stated. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 16:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, thats not a policy. It was illegally added to the policy documents category by Toejam a year ago. Check all the old revisions. Want kevans two cents on the issue, or at least the two cents he put there, heres the revision you want: linky --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And then Kevan strongly supported the text, in the talk page of said policy. linky --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 16:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. He wanted the policy to be fleshed out and then reiterated his stance more than once. He also has an option of hosting off-site, so that has been available for a while. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 16:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Grim is right, Hagnat is right, Paradox

The problem as I see it is that Grim is right and so is Hagnat! The Page Protection rule exists to stop sysops using their power to protect stuff for personal reasons and that is GOOD, sadly it also seems to stop sysops protecting pages for good reasons without going through the correct process and that is BAD! Rather than a simple rule saying no there should be a page where a sysop can notify others of the action he has taken and if anyone disagrees with it they can undo his decision and send it through the full procedure. It would save time and make the job a little simpler without losing the checks on personal misuse. Unfortunatley such a change would probably need a policy vote etc... and waste more time than its worth. Hopefully cases such as this can be sorted with common sense as one sysop (probably hagnat!) breaking the rule to draw attention to it so that in the following misconduct case others can decide to change the guideline to encompass a more common sense way of doing things. The only problem is that Grim would almost certainly get burnt if he ever tried it (look what happened when he banned a vandal while he was banned!!!) which severely limits what can be acheived through common sense and means he will stand against such an approach being taken! --Honestmistake 15:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for fucks sake. You're really going to buy into Grims little martyr story, because I made one mistake and banned him because I figured contributing to the wiki was avoiding a ban from contributing. Hell, I've given him the benefit of the doubt plenty of times before that, but I've crossed him now, so now I'm the enemy. Go looking for the time the prick overruled my warning so that he could ban Sockem for 24hrs, despite being told by others that his interpretation of policy was wrong. That's only the worst case of his arrogant disregard for good judgment. If I was half the bitch this guy was, I'd have had him up on misconduct regularly there for a while. It's absolutely laughable that he'd be the one to start reporting sysops over such minor matters as protecting a community archive page that had just been created without going through the red tape. Sad, sad little man. No one cared if that page was protected by Hagnat, or someone else... no one except some sad cunt who wants to make others look worse than him via his little misconduct tally template -- boxy ^{talk • i} 15:29 25 January 2008 (BST)

Hey, I am merely pointing out that there are enough idiots here that will leap on any chance to try and drag Grim through the mud and that would defeat the purpose of this whole idea. I actually trust that the current admin team would ignore and rule against such triviality but the mere fact that we both know he would get more stick than you or some of the others for doing the same thing is what i am trying to highlight. As for your mistake, we all make em and I never suggested that you made yours out of any sense of malice... in fact i didn't even mention you by name and mentioned that case more to illustrate the force of opinion that came out against him and how a lot of it was totally unjustified! I am not saying that Grim is a saint or that he is persecuted, just that his unpopularity would make him a target if he played fast and loose with the rules in the same manner! --Honestmistake 15:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The misconduct tally template was something i came up with on a whim while experimenting with tables, and i thought it would be pretty cool to be able to tell at a glance how naughty or nice sysops are, when their archives arent at all managed like A/VD. You can see further results of my table experimentation on this page, and the final work of my experimentation on my userpage. You are the only person to draw that erroneous, and i might add, extremely weak "link" between the templates creation and this. Ive made it pretty well known that i do what i feel is right and proper within the rules, and take exception to others not doing the same, without regard for personal favour or disfavour. Im on good terms with karek, but if he fucks up i am duty bound to report him for it. As for banning sockem after overruling you. Well, i did a quick search of the archives since i came back. Let me see. Ah yes, found it. No wonder i didnt remember it, you misrepresented it in your summary. Sockem did vandalise, was found guilty by karlsbad, there was a scuffle over the rules, by the time it was finally sorted out, both of us had made at the time equally valid assumptions of what the rules meant, and i quickly had a policy created which supported a more lenient stance than the one followed. Link, for anyone who cares. The discussions relevant can be found on the archives talk page, and in the talk page for this policy. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Evil Sysops

Never. This would give abusive users such as Grim s all the justification they need to continue their reign of terror. "Eg: "I banned the user for his template insulting me and the rules don't apply." Other abuses such as deleting comments for no reason could also be justified. TerminalFailure

People seem to fail to trully understand what a policy about ignore all rules would mean for the community. It wouldn't give users the right to ban others for no good reason and without having to justify their actions, but to help make editing the wiki something less rigid and bureaucratic. If i ban someone who wasnt reported, i better give a really good explanation of why when asked... and if i fail to convince the community that banning that user was for it's own good, i will be misconducted and punished for my actions. IAR applies to all rules, even IAR. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to like it Hagnat, I really do - the spirit is right, but how do we prevent it from becoming additional cover for misbehavior? A second layer for admin rulings on everything? "Sure what I did was vandalism, but I was ignoring all rules for this reason..." Then becomes a debate about whether it was about vandalism AND whether it qualifies for the ignore rules exemption. Isn't it more efficient to just say that rules against vandalism my preclude some things that might have some intrinsic value to someone? And yes, I fully see the irony in me making this argument at this time.--Squid Boy 16:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

See #1, #4 and #5 in What "Ignore all rules" does not mean on the policy text. Vandals still will be punished, sysops still have to work towards the good interest of the wiki or face misconduct for abusing their powers --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 16:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Simple Answer

Already exists on this wiki, all putting it into words like this will do is limit it and make more needless bureaucracy.--Karek^maps?! 16:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this already exists in the way that I originally had it. Punishing people for improving the wiki is hardly following IAR. The problem I see with IAR that I did not foresee was the changes it would make to pages like A/SD where any user, sysop or not, must have a deletion request double checked before it is actually deleted. It's the safety net. (See A/SD#Crit_1, where our current system prevented a wrongful deletion) If IAR was in place I probably would have deleted it and it would have either been unnoticed or undeleted. Would it be misconduct as a wrongful deletion or not as I would have been attempting to improve the wiki? And what about protecting pages, (much like the most recent misconduct case) where do we draw the line? In that case Hagnat's protection served as improving the wiki, and did not impede the efforts of others to make any other changes as the page was no longer in use. The thing I find most amusing is that the page was never unprotected. Should we apply the rule selectively or do we make rules for the ignore all rules? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You might be able to argue that Hagnat's protection didn't hurt the wiki, but protection never improves the wiki. As far as normal users are concerned it exists through the requirement of bad faith, as far as Sysops are concerned it also exists, but it's extremely limited. I, for example, can add the {{HistoricalGroupTalk}} template to protected historical groups talk pages, that is contributive edit and a edit request is technically required for that but I would probably never get called to misconduct for it because that is a contributive and helpful edit that should have been done before or when the page was protected. Same would hold true if someone forgot to add the {{Spam}} template when the suggestion was removed and protected. --Karek^maps?! 20:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually that page never HAD any use to begin with. It was created by myself to archive all 2007 news, and protected the second i pressed the save page button. All it's content was still editable by a simple rollback on the news page. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly, karek. Preventing vandalism always improves the wiki. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not preventing vandalism, it's protecting against accidental edits, it's purpose is the same as why Suggestions votes are a scheduled protection. It's assuming stupid editors.--Karek^maps?! 20:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. A non sysop cannot edit the page, and therefore cannot vandalize it. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's assuming bad faith from the community. A non sysop can also never improve upon the page.--Karek^maps?! 20:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Protecting an archive of in game updates that will never, ever, ever change and should never, ever, ever change from the only possible outcome: Vandalism - is improving the wiki. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, If a user came by to add an archive TOC to the top of the page like we currently do with administrative archives that would be a contributive edit. There are many such edits that normal users can do that aren't vandalism and aren't ressurecting things in the archive.--Karek^maps?! 20:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)0

Bloody hell, let's not get in technicalities and what ifs. Let's just say that was a neutral edit that was highly unlikely to impede someone else's edits. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Might I point out that technicalities and what ifs is the whole argument for justifying protecting any page ever.--Karek^maps?! 20:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Still, there are less what ifs and technicalities for the page Hagnat protected, then say the Main Page, so HAH! :P --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait... did you just said you edited protected pages without a request for them ? I say, good sire, where is your misconduct cases ? Such action is a clear abuse of your powers as a sysop. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have, the historical group talk thing I actually went and did do last night while serving some Scheduled Protects, I added the template to some of those protected talk pages that didn't have it. So if someone wants to open a misconduct case they can, but that certainly wouldn't help your point. Specifically, because it was something that wasn't done due to negligence on the original sysop's part.--Karek^maps?! 20:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The error of another user doesnt excuse your errors, you filthy wrong doer. And is it written The Grimch in my signature ? Why would i bring you to misconduct over such a trivial edit ? Amd speaking of Main Page... why have no one ever been misconducted for editing it while being protected ? I know i edited it twice already... and the same applies to the navigation template... woo, why doesnt anyone ever misconducted me for those edits ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Meh, protecting pages is a much bigger deal.--Karek^maps?! 21:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What about banning over 500 "users" who havn't even posted one contribution, let alone 3? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:47 1 February 2008 (BST)

Part of the job you volunteered for, you're point? Also, pretty sure that is included in the rules --Karek^maps?! 11:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd sure hate to have to prove that any of them were actually adbots (even though I'm absolutely convinced they all were), given they they never got a chance to post -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:46 1 February 2008 (BST)

The fact that you didn't kinda proves my point.--Karek^maps?! 13:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Slippery Slope

That's all I see this discussion(/policy) as. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 09:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I may be a mere wiki peon, but even I can tell that this policy will only lead to bitchfests greater than any yet experienced in the UD universe. --Mordred 17:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

SCOTUS

Your complaint is that we have a body of laws, and no sound policy on how to interpret these laws so that gray areas or ambiguous details don't cause a major conflict. We're boggled down by subjective disagreements and fine print. This problem is the source of a lot of the kvetching on this wiki. Now in the non-internet world this problem exists too, but it's addressed by the court system. The legislature (wiki users) comes up with and votes on laws, and the police (sysops) enforce it following the interpretation of the the Courts (nobody). Why not do something similar here? There are often petty disagreements about how to follow the rules, and it seems silly to have every user follow their own personal viewpoint. Voting to add or alter rules is a long process, and if it doesn't pass you're left with the same situation.

How about we devise a system to elect Judges? This would be different than arbitration where you have two people in a dispute. Here you could have one person bring a rule to the court's attention to clarify things just for future reference, without an opposing party. Or a sysop could bring a rule they're not sure about to the court before acting on it. Hypothetical example:

A certain page requires you sign your additions with a timestamp. A user decides that instead of leaving a normal timestamp they want to post a jpeg of a clock showing the right time. To check if this is all right the user could put this rule interpretation before the court OR another user or sysop could put it before the court if they want the person to stop. Once the court issues an opinion on an issue that's how everyone follows the rule, until the court changes its mind (which it can do) or the rules are changed in a vote.

Maybe have a three judge panel, elected by the community based on a reputation of fair mindedness? And to ensure they stay fair minded maybe a judge's seat would go up for a vote every eight months, so we'd have three elections a year. A judge with a consistently unjust record would lose their spot, or a better candidate could replace a current judge. --Jon Pyre 22:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That's wrong, user's are the cops, Sysops are the courts.--Karek^maps?! 22:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What? But the users have no guns or weapons, I have a hammer. Well, I guess, a gavel, or something. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Think of them as British Police.--Karek^maps?! 22:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ooo. :D --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sysops are given all the powers to actually DO things. Justices don't act, they only interpret. I'd say a sysop is definitely analogous to a cop. --Jon Pyre 22:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A sysop's job isn't to decide what gets brought to them, that would be the role of a cop to a judge, the Sysop is the one who decides whether a crime was committed and what action is to be taken. That's very much judicial.--Karek^maps?! 22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying sysops don't or shouldn't make judgement calls. Police officers also make choices in the line of the duty. This is to address gray areas where the rules are clearly open to subjective interpretation. This is just so everybody (sysops and users) can agree on the same one system of following or enforcing the rules. --Jon Pyre 22:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And I'm saying that comparing SysOps to cops is foolish, if we didn't have to do everything through UDWiki:Administration then maybe, but we do. If we could ban users however we want based on judgement calls then maybe, but we can't. SysOps aren't analogous to cops, we don't police the streets, the users of the wiki do.--Karek^maps?! 22:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, of course it's not a perfect analogy. But I think it's safe to assume that at least some rules can be interpreted in a few ways, and it makes sense for us all to have a single opinion to follow rather than everybody doing their own thing. Often it's a minor detail like the jpeg clock thing. With a court whoever wants that rule clarified could just post the question, and the judges would decide what would be best. --Jon Pyre 23:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This already exists for sysops

I don't have time to read this entire discussion, so if someone has already pointed this out, I apologise.

In the general conduct section of the Guidelines Rehashed policy, you will find this:

• "Moderators, as trusted users of the wiki, are given the right to make judgment calls and use their best discretion on a case-by-case basis. Should the exact wording of the policies run contrary to a moderator's best good-faith judgment and/or the spirit of the policies, the exact wording may be ignored."

--Funt Solo ^QT 11:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

wow, never saw that piece of text there. :D anyway, the right to ignore all rules should be given to all users, not only sysops. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe I missed that either. So would this mean that hagnat's case isn't misconduct? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made a post to that effect near the bottom of the Misconduct case. I wondered if, given the specific wording you used in your ruling, that you may reconsider that ruling based on the policy excerpt I've cited. As I remember it, this was pushed through in the first place to stop people doing blatant wiki-lawyering. (It's ironic that, in bringing it to everyone's attention, I'm now being accused of wiki-lawyering. Ho hum.) --Funt Solo ^QT 22:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that only applies where the letter violates the spirit of the rules. Where the sysop violates the spirit of the rules, he is still subject to misconduct. In both recent cases Hagnat was guity as hell. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, both cases are over. However, I will point out the "and/or" in that policy segment, which allows for the "spirit of the policies" not to be considered. --Funt Solo ^QT 10:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Meh, Misconduct exists, in part, for the purpose of reviewing such judgement calls and deciding if they were good or bad judgement. --Karek^maps?! 10:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. If you look back at the case, you'll see that I only brought up that policy segment (as I've already said) because I didn't know if it had been taken into account by those who were judging it. Again, as I've already said, Gnome (see his comment above) didn't know about it. Hagnat didn't know about it. Vantar hasn't said either way. So, I feel justified in having brought it up on the case, as there was at least one sysop making a judgement on the case that wasn't fully aware of the guidelines. --Funt Solo ^QT 10:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of this is the timeless debate between spirit and letter of the law, check your textbooks it's true, Perhaps a forum should be created for suggestions which, technically, break the law, but for the greater good of the wiki. Yours truly, Flash Badness! April 14th 02:09

Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex, it's how I have and always will treat most cases on this wiki, most notable Arbitration Cases. It's smart judgment calls based on each cases merits in relation to the rule that they have violated but, that's not what this discussion was made about, this discussion was originally made because of a case where a SysOp was purposely avoiding noting his actions in regards to deletions and protections because it would have taken some of his time.--Karek^maps?! 11:00, 14 April 2008 (BST)

Fuel to the Fire

The concept of WP:IAR, while wise and well intended, has had the effect of throwing fuel on the political fire -- the only possible result. Let's not repeat that mistake here.

The chief weakness of WP is the lack of shared values among editors. This is a direct consequence of the "anyone can edit" policy. Over time, many have come to edit who have no interest in the SuperordinateGoal. More, they believe that their own goals are more important than any others; in some cases, they say they are carrying out the direct instructions of their chosen gods. There is no effective appeal to reason with such people. Only force or the threat of it can dissuade them.

In theory, such people would be excluded from editing; in practice, they have wormed their way into the sysop and bureaucrat ranks. At this point, the only thing keeping the entire project from exploding is steady maintenance and enforcement of explicit rules. Eventually, internal discord will overcome all efforts to restrain editors and the whole mess will slide into the sea.

UD players, almost by definition, do not agree on a superordinate goal. Some come to kill, some to save, some to build, some to raze. The very atmosphere of the game fosters large factions of nihilists and anarchists. It also encourages, in opposition, groups of structure-minded people who believe that controlled, collective effort will win the day. Mockers, scoffers, and blasphemers round out the score. We are not all in agreement -- about anything.

IAR is implicit in every set of rules, in any human community, on every scale. The basic notion is self-evident: Anyone can -- and must -- break any rule if following the rule would be a Very Bad Thing and that person is prepared to risk the consequences of breaking the rule. The wise use IAR with caution; the arrogant without; the foolish as a blunt instrument with which they damage everything in sight including, at the last, themselves.

It is an error of heroic proportions to write such a notion into law. The wise do not need the principle explained; the arrogant do not care; the fools should not be given yet another dangerous toy.

The correct long-term remedy for a rule which prevents Right Action is to rewrite the rule. Elevation of IAR considered harmful.

→Xiong 05:07, 22 May 2008 (BST)

*blinks* Wait, what ? Wow. This is a great input. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:41, 22 May 2008 (BST)