User blog comment:Gideoncrawle/ADMIN BLOG POST: Revisiting Rules, and The Future of Featured Quote/@comment-32154022-20120625011413/@comment-1874924-20120625013250

I didn't suggest that a character page has to have an activity summary to be valid. I suggested that it's one of the things that could make a character page valid.

The collabs are already out of the limit except when the user in question is the lead author, i.e. the one primarily responsible for the story. The real target of the story limit rule is the users who set up a large number of story pages, post one or two chapters (if that) and then leave them to rot. Besides, how many people do you know who could write four or more competition stories at once and do them all justice?

The duration of the ban in that case isn't the issue, the issue is whether it's proper to impose a ban at all when someone makes one questionable statement and then aplogizes profusely--and apparently sincerely--for it. In the case that was the catalyst for my proposal, you disagreed with the banned user's statement. Would you be as quick to endorse a ban for a statement that you agreed with? If not, then you've made my point for me--the point being that we need a more content-neutral policy than what we currently have.