Generally, this flaming, mainly comprising some of you called Nivek a faggot with this replacement tactic. People who did so repeatedly have been warned and have sat bans in the past. Mainly this group consists of you, Jalim and Stevers. Some others have chimed in as well as a result. The guideline is simple: No unwarranted flaming here. If you have no real reason to mention Nivek's name (other than flaming or to rile people up), why would you do so in the first place? If it gets this bad with other posters, we'll protect them from flaming as well. So no, it is not about the simple mention of Nivek's name, but rather flaming. However, if you do mention Nivek's name, it should be understandable from the post why you do so. You don't generally randomly mention other people without any reason at all, do you? Just don't mention Nivek when Nivek isn't relevant. That should be simple enough and avoids you from getting banned. As per rule 7, repeated slander of individuals is not tolerated. This is why we are cracking down these posts. If you're trying to game the rule by mentioning Nivek's name for no reason at all in order to annoy moderators or Nivek, it isn't likely to end well for you.

The main differences between my stances and those of Daurwyn are not whether it is ultimately banworthy if it keeps going, but rather how quickly we should ban for it. I would have preferred to warn first and give them a chance to obey before banning. I also believe that it would be beneficial to delete these flames more vigorously than we currently have done, instead of just slapping a ban and leaving it up so that people can see what got you banned. I would prefer to start with warnings, even with the repeat offenders, just to make sure they remember. Delete post, warn, maybe even twice on repeats if the time between them is long enough, if it doesn't help, ban. If the ban doesn't help, longer ban if warnings don't work again. If the longer ban and subsequent warnings do not work, permanent ban is slapped. At this stage, you will have to negotiate with VIPs in order to be able to post here again. This would include a sincere promise not to do it again. If you break it again, the permaban is renewed and it will be difficult to persuade us to lift it again.

You, Jalim and Stevers are currently at 'longer ban if warnings don't work again'. So personally, I would like to start with warnings if you do that and if that doesn't work, slap a 30 day ban. With longer warning fuse Daurwyn has had with his recent bans for this issue, I think we can avoid most of the bans so that this doesn't become an issue where people need to feel wary of accidentally slipping. However, the increase in ban duration is required in order to avoid people gaming the rules. You can probably move a stage down in the scale I presented above but it takes time. Positive posting and no offenses for a long time generally does that.

Generally, I would prefer us managing to make it stop without having to ban anyone. Generally, we've managed to stop most of it and probably don't need to ban again for it, but if it people start doing it again, then warnings and possibly bans will follow.