Fri 7th December 2007, 5:36am
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 7th December 2007, 1:20am)
It doesn't really bother me that JzG writes this way. What does bother me is that other editors are arbitrarily taken to task for ill-defined, and often lesser, "incivilities." (talking back to an administrator, opposing an RfA, etc.) Supposedly, we're reluctant to lay down hard and fast rules (e.g., no dirty words, no attacks on ethnicities, etc.) because this would allow others to "game the system" (which outside Wikipedia is called "following the law.") Examples like JzG's show that the real reason to avoid clarifying the rules is that, were they clear, it'd be more difficult, or at least more embarrassing, to enforce them unequally: a "no dirty words" provision would seem a no-brainer for a civility policy, but one which would lead to JzG getting blocked rather frequently.
There's more to it than that.
The number of Norms that a Ganglord can get away with violating is a measure of his or her Status in the Gang.
Notice that I said «Norms» not «Rules». A norm does not have to be written down on a policy page somewhere. What matters is that the WikiPeanut Gallery watching the exhibition of behavior can see just how far the Ganglord is allowed to deviate from what the average Wikipeon can get away with, and this tells them just how Rank that Ganglord is.