The rule for following objective is subjective, actually one of the most subjective rules there are. This rule of following the objective needs to maintain its sense of subjectivity because its up to better judgement to rule on this violation. Obviously, I think that the admins here jumpy or triggerhappy when it comes to banning to say the least with the exception of root admins. It seems that admins get no repercussions for making mistakes unless blatantly obvious.

Ambiguity in rules leaves some rules up to better judgement, which I think is lacking. Aside from that objective rule, other rules are not even mentioned in the rules page, which makes arguments really easy to defeat using ambiguity as a mask or shield. Rules like ignoring an admin or undermining their actions are ambiguous because any admin can make you do something that you might disagree with and have valid points against but it would have ultimately broke the rule of not following directions, which is ridiculous (I understand the "ignoring an admin" part of the rule if the admins point is valid).

Some rules are not even mentioned in the rules like admin disrespect. What does that even mean? I can understand if you ban for undermining their actions if they insult you instead of listening, but banning for admin disrespect just allows the loss of credibility. I have only seen two people use this repetitively (Deadie and Drago).

If what nme is saying is correct, every person that saves should be banned for not following objective.

Personally speaking, it is pathetic that admins would try to circumvent their own rules by using a cloud of uncertainty and ambiguity to avoid repercussions. I have asked for clarification of rules before and nothing came of it. What makes things worse is the last sentences of the rules: The list is non-exhaustive. If you're unsure about anything ask an admin. This allows them to determine the rules.