But the fact remains unless we make it a rule that admins cannot prank people there's very little point to having an anti-prank list in the first place.
Because the only way to enforce it is by making those who disagree about the nature of the pranks (and have admin access to carry them out in the first place) feel completely disapproved of by the more vocal members which by its very nature could be considered a form of bullying too.
i think respecting an anti-prank list must be a voluntary thing. i don't see what the problem is with respecting the wishes of those members that don't want their nicks or avatars (etc) changed, however, i really don't, but i also know it can't be enforced.
i think Dunc introduced this line of thought, btw, when he suggested the anti-prank list. this was in the caretaker's forum so most people haven't read it. (and no, i don't think he wanted a moderated intensity, either.)
as for the rest of your post, i think i've addressed your points, some more than once. i don't agree with your double standards accusations--in fact, i take exception to it--but i don't see how i can make you see my views. i've already tried, and failed, apparently.
however:
from several of the comments above, then, are people suggesting that I2 is only for the young, now?
as a card-carrying "grumpy old woman", i take great exception to that sort of shite.
Who said it was only for the young or not for grumpy old codgers of either sex? Lets not start playing the age card shite here.
it's a matter of perception.