- Someone who grow up and lives in a free country, where "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression," "freedom of peaceful assembly," and "freedom of association" are fundamental rights protected in our constitution (via Charter).
- Someone happily watches Qubool Hai right now and accepted RaQesh... in fact, I was probably one of the first ones who accepted him because I started liking him after the promotional shoots.
- Someone who has been a fan of Karan for 4-5 years (that's is approximately 24% of my life, which means to me it is a significant time)
- Someone who has been criticized and appreciated by the group of people you probably made your new rule for.
- Someone who fights for what she believes is right... regardless of the consequences. I am not doing this because it is the internet... I have done this in real life as well. I can give examples of this but this post isn't all about me.
- Someone who wants be a lawyer. I am 19 right now and for law school in Canada, you need an undergraduate (technically three years but due to competition you need full degree), so right now I am in second year of my undergraduate majoring in Law & Business.
- In my own country these rights aren't absolute because they are subjected to section 1 "reasonable limits" that "can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"
- So when I put your rule to the test to see if it is justified, it is not! I know as a fact no one is being harmed physically and emotionally people aren't that sensitive. Everyone has the means to defend themselves (aka a viable internet connection and a computer-like device), so there is NO NEED for such an unfair policy! More on unnecessary in the last section
- Censorship as catastrophic results, history shows us this. Members' posts can be good or bad but to stop them from expressing themselves is always bad!
- Karan seems to be Voldemort and if you know Voldemort then you should know how it was wrong to fear saying his name. JK Rowling described the idiocy of it in her books, so I won't repeat BUT the point is they at least feared death (and every idiotic way one can think to protect themselves easily becomes smart in life/death situations) but here the fear is disagreement and posts being shut down! How is that smart or a good move?
- The efficiency this new rule allows comes at a high price that NO ONE should overlook. Instead of monitoring threads and seeing where people are coming from, there is probably a code written to detect Karan's name and shut-down the post instantaneously. So is everyone who mentions Karan a bad person plainly looking to insult someone? Because if so, bold any part of this thread that I crossed a line in a fair world? Maybe the majority is not with me completely on my stance BUT the majority of the forum members are mature.
- I understand there are fanatics who argue needlessly (due to their passion) BUT that is probably less than ten A DEFINITE minority. And honestly in my opinion, even they have a right to express their outrage, but I see your point in restricting them so agree to disagree on that.
- This regulation is unnecessary because people are not being harmed. A Forum is "a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged." This is the place to talk and assembly. Ban individual members DON'T wrongfully restrict the majority who are sensible and mature. What possible emotional injury could someone get on this forum? If one can't take a little dissent then that person should stay away from the internet. Debate and dissent is healthy and good for the mind. We learn in school language so we can communicate and express ourselves. We got to school to learn how to deal with peers and people in general. Everyone on this forum is prepared for dissent and if not then why join an international forum?