Established the terms of that gray area and when the line is has, in fact, been the whole point of this thread. Saying "If that's not on the allowed side of the line, headmins shouldn't be able to post to the thread either" isn't helping anything.
I personally think that's a borderline case but is on the right side of where the moderation line SHOULD BE but it's not on the right side of where it is and is being enforced as RIGHT NOW according to our current rules.
If Steno comes back, it won't be part of this thread's doing. This is to permit discussion of what qualifies as an "involved" post, but that has died down somewhat as I haven't seen many, maybe even any, 'borderline' posts like that. It's totally different from
http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic. ... =216#p2196 for instance.
I strongly believe that similar incidents should be considered relevant if:
1 They have details on names and events that can be confirmed by logs
2 They have a time listed that is specific to within a single day for log reference
3 The situation was not resolved or FNR'd elsewhere,
particularly if it was because it was something that isn't FNR-worthy alone.
4 The situation actually happened
This opinion is not unanimous, however, and this thread provides a place for people to explain what they think is wrong about my reasoning.
Namely, 1 and 2 mean any non-lazy admin can confirm the story, 4 means it wasn't wildly skewed or otherwise unsuitable for use.
Point 3 of my suggestion, "The situation was not resolved or FNR'd elsewhere, particularly if it was because it was something that isn't FNR-worthy alone" is the most contentious and it's the one I'd like to explain here.
It means that if people come out of the woodworks with stories of similar behavior, we can prevent Rule-10-relevant situations from slipping through the cracks. Am I thinking of Bee York? Yes. Yes, I am. He was the ultimate example of someone who never should have been able to play on our servers as long as he did the way he did because he knew how to toe the line so that no
single individual knew the full extent of his shit.
Some people are shit, but they're shit to small numbers of people at a time and never in huge ways, so that no single ban request against them can succeed.
Some people are good at this, others just haven't been caught yet. By allowing that specifically, we can establish when someone has a reputation based on actual facts and events (as established in parts 1, 2, and 4 of the proposed conditions for 'similar events') that tend to repeat themselves with different people rather than simply not being liked.