[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Judge

This is for a number of reasons, not least of which is to protect a player from unwarranted attention, it may well be that our discussion of an issue could result in disclosure of details that the player may wish to keep to himself (or her).

In most of the cases that crop up on these forums the player in question brings it up so it's fairly safe to assume they're okay with the issue, er, being brought up.

As for explaining single decision is made, well that is down to practicality, they simply do not have the time.

Obviously not every single decision needs to be explained. Just the few that seem so patently absurd, ie this one, or affect a large number of people, ie zebra punch.

Also it is invariably the case that the player "knows full well" the alternate meaning of there chosen R/P and is basically just coming the twit -i +a

Double entendres are half the fun of life itself. The question is where these become offensive and worthy of being removed. I mean my own r/p this round is THE ENORMOUS SIZE of MY ERRR EGO. Now, because I decided that being annoyed by multihunters denying me various r/ps before I came across one that was okay was better than having my r/p changed midround to something I found painfully moronic, I actually had this approved pre-round. However to me my own r/p seems far more offensive than the r/p that led to this thread. I mean, it's not exactly hard to guess what I'm referring to with my r/p and I can imagine how someone might find someone else referring to their penis size not-so-subtly offensive. I really can't see how sucks to be you is offensive. I mean there are no sexual connotations in that phrase at all.

In realistic terms most players who are in dispute about there chosen R/P are there because they chose to push the boundaries, and to further discuss the issue only adds to the problem as it then allows them a platform to argue.

Not really. Most people are just offended by the fact that as the game has shrunk from one played by 40,000 people to one played by less than a thousand the multihunting team has managed to preserve their jackass-like existence by inventing new rules to enforce and spending ever increasing amounts of time enforcing them. Further those people are offended by the aloof, bureaucratic nature of the multihunters when they do manage to unearth such horrendous offences as naming your planet "sucks to be you". Finally people don't like the fact their r/p choices are restricted beyond what they think is fair.

In realistic terms the main problem is in how much of a pack of faggoting jobsworths the multihunters insist on being an alarming amount of the time.

By denying the argument it denies further problems, where a player may attempt to personalise or escalate the issue.

What is this, the principle of multihunter infallibility? This is the same sort of logic as "imprison everyone and then there'll be no criminals roaming free!"