example: the WWP "no posting personal information" rule. It was always the rule. But almost everyone used to ignore the fact that personal info of Scientologists seemed to be exempt. Sue didn't, and he bitched and kvetched privately for years. It isn't "suddenly okay now" to post personal, private information about Scientologists on WWP. It isn't "suddenly not okay" either. It was ok/notok before, and it's ok/notok now. Only the standards we use to judge ok-ness have been upgraded, and they're a lot tighter. Some anons think it's ok to post personal stuff, because Scientology is a horribel clut. I'm one of those. I would guess MOST chanons do. Even sue has posted confidential dox. [fairly sure. don't have specific dox to back that at the moment] But the line between 'ok' and 'not ok' is different for each of us. Smurf might post stuff that I consider 'not ok'. I might post stuff that Sue considers 'not ok'. I try not to, because it's important to respect the shared values such as they are. I'm probably much closer to Sue than Smurf in where I'd draw the line. b& people normally get b& not because they "broke the rules" but because they disrupt the social compact. The idea that we respect eachother, and make reasonable accommodations when we disagree with others. Anonymous has always supported people who flout convention. But those who flout too much, never make a good fit. Troublemakers who "make a little trouble" have been the mainstay of Chanology since day 1. Ones who "make a lot of trouble" eventually find their way outside of the community.