Schneib:
Firstly - and this may have been posted already (I've been at campus and/or with my nose hard to the study grindstone for the last 48+ hours, and may have missed something) - you were reminded (in the
blue note, posted by me)
not for a specific or narrow offence, such as one personal attack. Instead, you were reminder for
not playing nice. "Play nice" is our master rule, whereas specifically defined instances against it (such as "personal attack" or "harassment") are only examples of what does not fit under the general "play nice" umbrella. Some express this master rule thus: "By all means disagree, but don't be disagreeable about it."
"Following" one member around the forum from thread to thread, and posting comments that repeatedly single them out in a negative manner as an individual/character, cannot by any stretch of imagination be called "playing nice." Therefore you got that reminder (which, by the way, was not written by me personally - I posted it after the staff had agreed to the wording). The reminder specifically said "not playing nice" and it did not say "personal attack", and that was intentional.
Secondly, I did answer to you twice (links below), and I have two more answers waiting to be written (one on banter and one on a few reasons why not-so-nice posts can go unnoticed or unchallenged). All my answers, however, were planned to be about how the rules and their interpretation/implementation *are* here. Personally, I have little interest in speculating how the rules, or the interpretation thereof, could or should be different, unless a sizable number of the non-staff members start to make a lot of noise to that effect (IMO staff should seldom, if ever, drive rule change, and a sizable number is >> 1).
The rules here, or their implementation, are not perfect, that is true, and I don't see anyone here denying that. However, IMO "perfect" rules do not and cannot exists (see my
first answer). Also, the interpretation / implementation of our imperfect rules a) is done by the staff as a group and b) follows a recognizable pattern (see my
second answer). As there is a recognizable pattern in how the rules are interpreted, it should not be too difficult to figure out how not to break rules - or so I hope.
I will not try to change the rules or their interpretation here solely based on any one member's say-so. Furthermore, I would not have campaigned for the rule/interpretation change you are promoting if I were a non-staff member still, mostly because I do not understand what you are aiming at. Forbidding or controlling human deviousness? Making sure that nobody can skirt close to breaking the rules without really crossing the line? As I told you before (first answer, link in the previous paragraph), I am convinced that that cannot be done - maybe not at all, and certainly not without altering the culture of this forum drastically, which I have no desire of doing. I like the tongue-in-cheek cheese-bacon-hugs-sex-gossip-banter centered general "touch" of this place. If you don't, and wish for a more serious tone, then you maybe indeed are in the wrong place (which does not mean that I would want you to leave - IMO you contribute quite a bit to the forum). Yet, the forum is not at fault for having a culture and/or traditions that do not personally please you well enough. After all, this forum never was a made-for-measure project for you as a customer. Your very early complaints about the rules here, just days after you had arrived, did remind me a bit of a Finn complaining that the food tastes different than what (s)he is used to or prefers, after dining for the first time in a Thai restaurant.
Now, please, please try to get this: TROLLING (or "gaming the system", as you call something somewhat related, which you AFAIK refused to define)
per se IS NOT AGAINST THE RULES. And has never been, here. Only malicious trolling
with the intention of harassing, intimidating, tormenting or persecuting another member is. Got that now?
Why this is important? Because we have had some major and very public tussles over this issue, over the years, and the answer from the majority of the active membership has been resoundingly against forbidding "unpopular" or "outrageous" comments. Even comments that are deliberately designed to enrage a large percentage of the membership (and "advertised" so) are allowed - despite of the play nice rule - because the alternative that risks freedom of speech. As long as you are not targeting a specific member with your outrageous comment, you are free to be as outrageous as you can (though you will need to spoiler NSFW images in the open part of the forum, lest they be reported and deleted).
If you can convince a majority of the active (likely to vote in a poll) membership that any part of the rules/interpretation/implementation should change, then the rules/... very likely will be changed. But changing the rules or their interpretation based on just one member's opinions would be utterly unfair against all the other members, IMO.
. And then when they come back, they can 
