We have trials to determine whether someone committed the crime, and to resolve the grey area of exactly which crime they may have committed. That is decided by human judgement on a case by case basis - which is what I have been arguing all along was necessary (and I have literally explained this point to you, in regards to court cases, already).
You are now arguing that up is down and black is white.
The current rule states:
You want to change that to ‘Blocking of content’ - the only change that makes is to remove the examples, and make the rule more vague. More vague is the literal opposite of more concrete.
You claim that the current vagueness of the rule allows for ‘rules-lawyering’ such as reporting people for blocking a single stick (technically) - except that under the current system, each case is judged by a human on a case by case basis, which means that such frivolous reports will be ignored. Whereas, as I have explained so many times I am sick of it, a concrete rule is a rule that is absolute - if you say ‘do not block content’ is a ‘concrete rule’ then you are saying there is no case by case basis, anyone that blocks any content is bannable - then you literally have made it so people can be banned for blocking a single stick.
You claim that the current rules create ‘grey areas’ and that this is a bad thing, despite the fact that I’ve pointed out to you over and over that is the whole point - the ‘grey areas’ are there to allow human judgement to decide each instance on a case by case basis. Yet your suggested replacement is to make it more vague, which creates more grey area. I am fine with that, but it is the exact opposite of everything that you claim to be arguing for.
Ultimately, the system you describe is a more vague version of the current system. I’m fine with that, since it still allows the Funcom admins to decide each case, on a case by case basis; using human judgement to judge each individual case, rather than trying to apply a single blanket rule to all. It’s just the opposite of everything you have said you are arguing for.
So long as you define the rule you want as ‘don’t block content’ and decided by Funcom admins on a case-by-case basis (ie the current system), I’m not going to argue. But every time you bring up the term ‘concrete rules’, I’m going to argue because there is always a danger that Funcom might listen and institute actual concrete rules (such as build piece limit, or no base may be bigger that 10x10x10 etc - those would be examples of actual concrete rules, and as has been repeatedly explained would be disastrous).
You’ve misunderstood my point about the official forums vs sub-category point. I wasn’t suggesting it as an idea, nor was I suggesting it would solve anything. I was pointing out that I assumed you couldn’t possibly be arguing that only players on official servers should have a right to use the forums. because that would be completely unreasonable (it becomes more apparent as we go on, that was exactly what you meant). I also made it clear that even if it was a sub-category, people would still have every right to express opinions on changes being called for. We all play the same game, and changes made to the game affect all of us. Every time you call for ‘concrete rules’ you increase the possibility that Funcom might decide to introduce some sort of concrete rule, such as fixed piece limits or build sizes, and that will affect all of us. Therefore we have every right to argue against it. Exactly the same as when people call for yet another item to be nerfed, it affects all of us so all of us have the right to speak out against it.