Yes on the subject of those things "not allowed" (now that means immediate permanent ban apparently), I was recently asked where the hell Forum Rules actually located on the site map, on behalf of someone who genuinely couldn't find it. Then it occurred to me that most modern (mobile phone / tablet) users actually don't get to see the link to Terms and Rules as old school desktop users did.For a moment I thought Raj, Sheldon , was back
Importantly the Terms and Rules "agreement link" you check upon registration is exclusive of, and not linked to the Forum Rules information.
In fact once a member is registered and has agreed to the fair Terms and Rules bit, there is no way to access the seperate more draconian punitive penalty action for actions described as simply not allowed under Forum Rules, unless you are logged in on a desktop computer and search the desktop for a hidden link like an Easter egg.
Is no wonder people are surprised when courteously advised something is against Forum Rules, because likely very few new members can actually see it, never mind read and take note of it. BTW if we are being encouraged to login using FaceBook and utilise its promotional marketing features perhaps there is a brief explanation as to how NOT to create a second account, as with the current complication it is an easy mistake for new players.
Also worth noting is the entire infraction warning system, as most older members understand and happily agreed to, seems to be abandoned, also that a moderator now does not need to justify actions based on any rules.
I have no reason to complain, just an important point of order and compliance to maybe bring to @Darren 's attention, that the policy of minimal moderation and self-regulation seems to work in the main except where, as noted above, a new member has not had the opportunity to read the rules by which they are summarily banned by a moderator. Seems unfair without any reference or notice in the Terms and Rules that registration for membership depends on agreeing to the Forum Rules and that a link be provided to that information.
This precipitates an ethical point: The "good standing" of a member's relationship to any moderator on the team should not influence application of the Forum Rules, lest the hidden rules as described, and unconditional power of the moderator as above, could be grossly misinterpreted. For example if a member of good standing trolls a thread with massively offensive opinion contrary to the Just Commodores forum ethos, to deliberately get a rise from pure argument, then we see a new very enthusiastic, typically disciplined and decent ex ADF sgt (who has not had the opportunity to read the Forum Rules) is permanently banned for retaliating, that seems unfair.
I suggest the application of punitive powers in banning the honourable ADF sgt does not deter trolling at all as the member of good standing will continue as resident protagonist (stirrer) and members are none the wiser about the Forum Rules and penalties, including changes to the infraction system and absolute power of any moderator irrespective of the agreed rules.