the rule isn't hypocritical, the enforcement is hypocritical. admins are expected to mute as per the rules (No abuse of in-game chat (racism, insulting, griefing, spamming...)) for all offenses. however, if this is done, sometimes what grimsight says happens and the server erupts in "civil disobedience," leading to more mutes and bans which is a situation no one is happy about. i've also been one of the "muh freedom of speech" guys who, on principle, would have these rules tossed. but seriously, is this not a thread based on who accrues more points on the victim scale? you're upset because admins mute on their own discretion and friend is higher than muslim on the offensive chart? in our society we can argue about how all offensive remarks should be held on the same pedestal, but in reality "friend" is the higher than all other insults for obvious reasons. because of this, people are more inclined to use it to be offensive because the word is just that: more offensive than other words. given this fact, i think it's understandable why there is a difference in punishment between the two words, kind of like how 2 tws are treated differently than 2 tks.
since you also brought up narmin, people give him shit because he's a complete retard who deserves to get shittalked for the amount of mindless garbage he spews in the server. he's a bad example to use because he himself should be muted as per the rules because of how toxic he is. ***disclaimer*** narmin does not shittalk, for imo shittalk must rely on some level of banter in order to be affable (i.e. GOBBLINKING personality), where as narmin insults people.
at the end of the day, the rules aren't going to change and everyone that decides to break the rules should at lease be man enough to take the punishment. if your rule breaking goes unpunished, consider yourself lucky.
as someone who has admin and lacks a personal mute button, i can totally understand why some people get muted more than others.
