Talk:Jayce/@comment-8969250-20170108124312/@comment-4091261-20170208231234

The discussion policy should be more detailed to handle general cases. The good thing about a general policy is that it is open to interpretation and can allow more appeals. The bad thing about a general policy is that it doesn't specify when someone went too far.

When it comes down to your average user, seeing something like "no inflammatory comments" can cause much confusion when some comments that can be considered inflammatory are okay, but others are punished. There is too much gray area for people anyone to understand that it allows trolls to act within this gray area and cause damage while going unpunished. Even more troubling when hardened people who try to express their interesting views, who get heated easily from criticism, are punished for their outburst--regardless of the fact that they made strong, relevant contributions.

Detailed law is admittedly very unforgiving and strict. However, the warnings before a punishment would grant a level of tolerance and clearly displays the boundary of acceptable and unacceptable. The wiki does currently issue warnings, however there isn't a policy stating when a warning will be issued in terms of comments.

It's up to the discretion of the staff founded by almost nothing else. It creates an absurdly high tolerance for inflammatory topics as topics that "jerks" (literally a term from our current policy) can debate in regards to their adherence to the relevance of a topic. In simple terms, "Since I'm right, I can flame you for being wrong."

I'm not sure if there are other reasons for why this hasn't happened already. Perhaps since the Wikia is supposed open place unbounded by restrictions. Maybe because there simply not enough manpower to issue a lot of warnings to all these comments. What I can say for certain is, ironically, the rules about commenting is vague.