Page 12 of 27 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 360 of 786

Thread: Rules discussion

  1. #331
    Yeah BABBling is still fine...

  2. #332
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Maksutov View Post
    Those games darn well better be fair!
    Are the games at the Fair always fair, by definition?

  3. #333
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,235
    Quote Originally Posted by hhEb09'1 View Post
    Are the games at the Fair always fair, by definition?
    Hmmmmm, fair games, sounds fair to me.

  4. #334

    Take out the rule againts sockpuppets

    I used to go to a site called GameFAQs,and there was no rule against sock puppets (which were called alts by the way). I never got one, but other people did, and I think it was pretty cool.

    I you're worried about people filling threads by having conversations with themselves, create a board called Random Insanity to hold threads like these, as well as any other "stupid" posts. There was a board on GF called Ranom Insanity (RI for short), and I was, for a while, one of the most active RIers around. To an uninformed observer it mignt have seemed like I ate, slept, and breathed RI. But then all the fun left and I started to fall off.

    But I would still visit it from time to time and would greatly appreciate an RI board here. I have 75% of a mind to use the OTBB board for this purpose, but I'm not sure that mods would appreciate random bizarre topics cluttering up OTBB.

  5. #335
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    7,794
    No, no, a thousand times no!
    If you already know of such a board, please keep you "Random Insanity" there!

  6. #336
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,743
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaptain K View Post
    No, no, a thousand times no!
    *10^infinity

  7. #337
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by The Patriot View Post
    But I would still visit it from time to time and would greatly appreciate an RI board here. I have 75% of a mind to use the OTBB board for this purpose, but I'm not sure that mods would appreciate random bizarre topics cluttering up OTBB.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaptain K View Post
    No, no, a thousand times no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Lonewulf View Post
    *10^infinity
    a google

  8. #338
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    7,794
    That's googol!

  9. #339
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,562
    I think google is now bigger

  10. #340
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,743
    Quote Originally Posted by hhEb09'1 View Post
    I think google is now bigger
    But it's not bigger than *10^infinity.

  11. #341
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    25,742
    What happens is that banned people come back as sock puppets. A lot, as a quick look through the "banned posters" section will show. And, yes, they agree with themselves all the time.

    By all that is holy, Phil and Fraser, keep the rule against sock puppetry!
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  12. #342
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Lonewulf View Post
    But it's not bigger than *10^infinity.
    I'm not so much against

  13. #343
    I think this is a great idea a place were all my personalties can have their own sock puppet. (just joking)

  14. #344
    On a more serious noteNO.

  15. #345
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    What happens is that banned people come back as sock puppets. A lot, as a quick look through the "banned posters" section will show. And, yes, they agree with themselves all the time.

    By all that is holy, Phil and Fraser, keep the rule against sock puppetry!
    Agreed.

    Even though I'm sure they have no intention of rescinding this rule.

  16. #346
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    25,742
    Quote Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck View Post
    Agreed.

    Even though I'm sure they have no intention of rescinding this rule.
    Likewise. They've more sense.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  17. #347

    Why am I so misunderstood?

    People always misunderstantd me. And one problem with keeping my RI on GF, I was banned (or at least suspended, FOR NO GOOD REASON ), and I need another board on which to post pointless topics.

    I'm sure some of the more beniegn stuff would be accepted on OTBB and FnG (Fun 'n' Games), but really bizarre posts (E.G. The Patriot vs. The Patrio2 Pointless argument, grwat name for a NONEXISTENT sockpuppet) would need an RI board.
    Last edited by The Patriot; 2007-Mar-05 at 12:11 AM. Reason: Typos

  18. #348
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    7,794
    Puhlease! You've been here one week. You've posted a total of 13 times. You were banned from the last board you were on. Now, you're demanding that the rules be changed so you can do the same thing here. What's wrong with this picture? This is a (mostly) serious science forum. The rules are in place to keep it that way. If you want a place to play sock-puppet games, I suggest GLP (GodLike Productions). They allow sock puppets and you don't even have to join. You can post there as an AC (Anonymous Coward) if you wish.

  19. #349
    i ask for a reconsideration of the rule against ad hominems

  20. #350
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,424
    Quote Originally Posted by ad hominem View Post
    i ask for a reconsideration of the rule against ad hominems
    I think you should be banned by default

  21. #351
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    28,701

    Rule changes

    Rule 16 has been modified to add the wording in bold:

    If you feel a post breaks one of these rules, please report it by clicking the 'report' button (the red triangle with the exclamation mark inside it, located at the top right hand side of every post). Do not talk about bad posts in the forum itself or suggest, speculate on, or threaten what the moderator response should be. All reported posts are reviewed by moderators or administrators, and are treated very seriously (so do not report frivolously). If you have concerns, please PM a moderator or administrator.
    This has been something of an unwritten rule all along. Now we're just making it explicit.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  22. #352
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,235
    Quote Originally Posted by ToSeek View Post
    Rule 16 has been modified to add the wording in bold:

    Snip....

    This has been something of an unwritten rule all along. Now we're just making it explicit.
    Does this include suggesting a new poster could be banned or warned for their post and they should read the forum rules, with a link to those rules? Or should such a post just be reported? Obviously a blantant post should just be reported, but I'm wondering about something like a freindly informational warning to a new (or even a not so new) poster. Something like here

  23. #353
    Suggesting they read the rules are fine, trying to predict a moderator response is not.
    Something like, "You'll be going away again, then. In fact, as soon as I'm done, I'll be reporting your post." will not be acceptable.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  24. #354
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,944
    Meaning just click the red button and dont comment on it .


  25. #355
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,020
    Quote Originally Posted by Whirlpool View Post
    Meaning just click the red button and dont comment on it .

    No, putting in a comment to the mod after clicking the red button is advisable, to let them know why you think the post needs bringing to their attention.
    It's posts on the forum itself that are being discussed here.

  26. #356
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    28,701
    I don't have a problem with people remarking that someone seems to be violating the rules and should be more careful, particularly if that someone is new here. It's remarks along the lines of "Looking forward to seeing your name on the Banned Posters List" that are inappropriate.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  27. #357
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,944
    Ok.

    Just a curious thought...

    Does that mean I can comment whatever I want when I think a person is violating as long as its appropriate and not look like twisting the hand of the Moderator?


  28. #358
    "That was against the rules." Ok.
    "That might get you banned." Ok'ish.
    "You're getting banned for that." Not ok.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  29. #359
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,944
    Ummm...

    How about commenting on a Mods act of banning which I think is not appropriate and somewhat very strict?


  30. #360
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,235
    Thanks to ToSeek and Henrik for clearing up my question.

Similar Threads

  1. ATM Rules Discussion
    By forrest noble in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 277
    Last Post: 2009-Nov-01, 09:59 PM
  2. Rules discussion, specific to my disagreement with a mod
    By beskeptical in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 2006-Sep-09, 04:45 PM
  3. Rules discussion split
    By Mosheh Thezion in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 2005-Oct-07, 07:04 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •