Those things destroy the community, while inconvenience does not.
Apparently you haven't seen communities that fell apart due to some people allowed to swear and generally behave toxically.
Right, those things destroy communities, but they're not inconvenient.
But, hey, even if we were to agree that it causes trouble, you have yet to define an objective standard that is qualify-able.
I don't. Mods do. If they establish the rules about how understandable should messages in the language be written, then it will be just addendum to rules, nothing more.
Mods enforce rules decided upon by others (usually the company). Mods are judges, not legislators. As users, we are merely voters. Legislators get their ideas from the voters. If you want new legislation, at least iron out the obvious bits so the politicians (gog staff) can come up with a more reasonable representation. However, that requires an objective standard to be established, but this is precisely what is lacking.
Did anyone expect to see the day where i'd be defending fairfox for over an hour? I sure as hell didn't.
Fairfox or her 'netspeak" dialect?
Both, ad ultimately Linko90, from my understanding of where this came from: one of the things people are critical about is that he didn't ban fairfox, which makes no sense for reasons outlined above.