I would also like to point out that such laws are in regards to laws that did not come into effect until after the person in question committed the acts. They do not apply to someone admitting to it after they have done something against the law.
And the "law" in question has not come into effect until
after the act.
Are people seriously saying that I should have my account locked because I abused the vulgarity feature by interpreting it as a complete, total IC function? I will admit: I am shocked. I'm not surprised at hearing one person, like Velax, say it. I am surprised to hear more people agreeing with it.
I think this is teaching me that, henceforth, I should be less honest about how I play BM. Who knows what other things I may be doing that I think are perfectly fine that, if I bring them up for consideration by others, they may decide my account should be locked?
Ya'll do realize how crazy that is, right? Like, if someone ever finds a "novel abuse" (as I seem to have), and reports it, say, after having done it a while
before ever realizing it was abuse, they should be locked? What? That makes no sense. That's a wonderful way to get people to
not report potential abuses.
Incentives. They matter.
