Cults?

[phongn]

Some time ago in the Moderator forums, there was a discussion about various cults and whatnot and, IIRC, it was concluded that they were not wanted. However, it appears that one is in the formative stage. I hate to rain on their parade, but will it be permitted?

[Surlethe]

Administrative Rule 5 is pursuant to this discussion, I think:

If you are found to be harassing another member (particularly a female member, and especially one who is less than 18 years old) via PM or some other means, particularly in a manner that makes the other member feel threatened in some way (such as "stalking", etc), you will be banned. Do not pester female members for personal info, and do not ignore requests to stop bothering them. Do not add lines to your sig to proclaim your love for some female member or declare some membership in a "cult" of worship for her. We are aware that some of you are young and prone to this sort of behaviour, but we do not tolerate it.

Legalistically, the behavior is all right, but that's not an issue, because even if there's a loophole, it can always be closed and shoved up asses (so to speak). I've always understood that the spirit of this rule is to prevent the formation of unwanted cults around members who neither want nor appreciate the attention, and since Uraniun 235 is apparently spearheading his own cult, I don't know that it violates the spirit of the law.

That said, there may be potential for future abuse, so I would submit the staff and Senate ought to monitor any future developments in this, and modify the rules if behavior becomes inappropriate.

However, I would be interested in hearing arguments from the debate between the Moderators, if they are relevant to this case.

[RedImperator]

I always thought a blanket ban on anyone saying they're in a personal cult was a little silly. Uranium himself has started this one. We stomped out cults because desparate virgins were embarassing themselves and us with them, but unless Stile et al have something they'd like to tell us, that's not the case here.

The measure might have been necessary before, but I think we've beat up on the AYVB enough that they won't start doing it again if U235 starts a silly cult to himself.

[Kuja]

I don't mind a signatures/sig pic kind of thing but a bunch of people with the same exact avatar is probably something that should be prohibited. People blazing through a thread often identify users by avatar (I know I do) and having 5-6 people with the same picture is guaranteed to cause trouble if flames start flying and someone accuses somebody else of something they've never done. Besides which, avatars are supposed to be unique, in the same line as a user name. We once banned someone for trying to masquerade as Mike (Darth W0ng) should we sanction multiple people using the same avatar?

[Gil Hamilton]

The rule was made because we kept getting "Cults of <x Boob Wielding Member>" in a desperate bid for attention from them. Uraniun isn't doing that, nor are anyone joining such a cult. I think, therefore, Uraniun's cult is kosher under the Law of the Land. Such is my judgement on the issue.

However, I propose that Uraniun be launched by trebuchet into the ocean for using this as post buffing spam.

[SirNitram]

There is no rule violation in this case, but spam should always be dealt with with extreme violence.

[Sonnenburg]

I don't mind a signatures/sig pic kind of thing but a bunch of people with the same exact avatar is probably something that should be prohibited.

I'd like to echo this sentiment. Reading through the thread in question was a pain for exactly this reason.

[phongn]

Didn't The Kernal have an old cult that was banned, though?

[Ghost Rider]

Didn't The Kernal have an old cult that was banned, though?

That was done during the great purge, so no one could use that as an out.

[Spyder]

Should we perhaps amend the rule so that cults require the person in question's permission?