You're viewing a single thread.
I hate people who decide after dealing with the first problem caused by a lack of a rule that hasn't existed for however long things were going on before the problem that it calls for a very general rule to prevent it from ever happening again. And somehow these assholes often end up in positions where they can set rules like that.
Zero tolerance policies in schools are another example. Suspending a kid for making finger guns isn't going to prevent school shootings. Banning nicknames isn't going to prevent anyone from ever insulting someone. It's just lazy and comes from a desire to reduce complex situations that require thought and maybe complex solutions to simple situations that don't require much thought and have a simple solution.
Nothing wrong with very general rules, as long as you pick the right ones.
Don't bully people. Don't be an asshole. Don't use or threaten with violence. Etc.
Even better are general positive rules: Be nice to other people. Be kind. Give constructive feedback. Etc.
General rules aren't great when they end up banning benign things along with bad things because they are too broad. Like no nicknames vs don't keep using a nickname if the person asks you to stop.
Yes, that's why I said "as long as you pick the right ones"