Also, if I have one criticism of Urban, of my own, then its this.
For a lot of this, Urban has been defending "Flexible Moderation" and "Common sense" approches to dealing with members.
In his recent post history I see a few instances of him dealing out ultimatums, laying down laws, and in this very thread, basically this whole page is filled with Urban asking Ki to back up various criticisms and points with some of the most defined, most binary, black and white examples possible.
Sorry Urban, I know you're a good influence on MB, but if you're going to ask super black and white things of
the members here, and ask Ki to provide super defined, super black and white examples of you being contrary to the rules, and provide super black and white, super defined examples of ways ki's claims aren't 100% factual in a certain way, why would you then proceed to argue against the concept of black and white rulesets and super defined approaches?
We both know that the black and white option is two things.
1 - Its not an effective way to police a forum, because it allows people to skirt the very edges of the rules while still being douchebags. Thats why the moderation here is good. Because that **** doesn't fly.
2 - It makes it extremely difficult for Ki to actually voice his opinion constructively, because you're sending him on a wild goose chase for black and white examples, when his point would be better served by taking the approach you advocate towards your own moderation.