Attention faggots:

[pohibaba]

I know this stopped being about something I said a long time ago, but it seems that Charismatic may have the wrong idea so let me clarify something. When I said

Wow, spam sure is leaking over into general, isn't it?

I meant nothing other than 2 specific posters than Charismatic and Ragnell (does he even post in Spam? I'm honestly not sure) in that specific thread. You have to admit that posts like:

Dude, stop having sex with dudes... aiight?

Glad that's out of the way.

Hey man, you said you were gonna stop.
You lied to me.

Uhh...



What?

Crafty little one ain't cha

are spam like posts, right?

[Not Kuno]

then maybe the mods should have, i don't know, given infractions to those posters who were clearly using it in a spammy sense instead of just placing this stupid blanket ban. i know this must be a really difficult idea to grasp, but sometimes the word "darwinism" actually applies and is a relevant point to make.

Which is why spam isn't tolerated on a case by case basis. If you say darwinism in a thread about an idiot who accidently shot his balls off, you will be fine.

The spam forum isn't really the problem, it's the spam in general. And where does the spam come from? Usually the people here (usually) know what the fucking deal is and don't fuck around in there. The problem is the lurkers and the newbs who come here and go "oh wow I want to be cool too" and start copying everything mildly funny/interesting (and promptly beating it to the ground).

[Plow]

I fucking fail at art.

Picture the internet as a giant rain cloud of forum posts.

Picture the forum titles as a "Filter." separating those posts.


Picture spam getting poured onto that filter.


Now picture some of that spam *leaking* through said filter, and entering general.


Hey, guess what, you just pictured spam leaking into general. And guess what? It didn't originate in the spam forum.

[Ksandra]

then maybe the mods should have, i don't know, given infractions to those posters who were clearly using it in a spammy sense instead of just placing this stupid blanket ban. i know this must be a really difficult idea to grasp, but sometimes the word "darwinism" actually applies and is a relevant point to make.

because we didn't fix the rule or anything, or did you decide not to check that out? Darwinism isn't even on the list anymore, and Miz was unbant yesterday.


Char I would see your point if

a. you weren't being hypocritcal about it (i.e. mods care too much about words! but how dare they use this word!)

b. the term was "leaky spam forum" It's just called leaky spam, if you really want to believe that 'spam" must mean spam posters, then I don't know what to say, aside that words have multiple means, and you're being to literal.


Also food for thought:

dictionary.com

leak⋅y
  /ˈliki/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lee-kee] Show IPA
–adjective, leak⋅i⋅er, leak⋅i⋅est.
1. allowing liquid, gas, etc., to enter or escape: a leaky boat; a leaky container.
2. Informal. unreliable: a leaky memory; a leaky tongue.

So infraction is because spam was ALLOWED (i.e. slipped in) to enter.










Guys we should change the spam forum name. Who has bagel bitten? Why would we name a forum about bagel biting someone if he hasn't bitten anyone? This is the most retarded thread title there is, there is NO proof or story about bagel biting anyone. Get the idea?

[Charismatic]

I know this stopped being about something I said a long time ago, but it seems that Charismatic may have the wrong idea so let me clarify something. When I said



I meant nothing other than 2 specific posters than Charismatic and Ragnell (does he even post in Spam? I'm honestly not sure) in that specific thread. You have to admit that posts like:










are spam like posts, right?

Here's the funny part... NO INFRACTION FOR THOSE

[Charismatic]

Of course I'll get one now because mods are butthurt, but w/e.

[Ivve]

It's hard to take you seriously when you on one hand say we were being over-the-top and too serious about the word "darwinism", when you are being over-the-top and too serious about the word "leaky".

slow your roll sweetheart. two words for you: "mod sass." mods didn't enjoy it when people had all kinds of shit to say about their practices, so they made it bannable. well i'm not a mod, so i can't turn my annoyance over semantics into a bannable offense.

[Not Kuno]

I don't think I've ever banned anyone for mod sass. I've never been a big fan of that rule, even though I usually have people give me shit every so often lol. Seems kinda dumb to not be able to question the mods when some of them are less then stellar.

[Ivve]

because we didn't fix the rule or anything, or did you decide not to check that out? Darwinism isn't even on the list anymore, and Miz was unbant yesterday.

right, because the +1 rule doesn't already cover that.

[Ivve]

honestly if people can't make the connection between posts that contain nothing but +1 and single word responses that add nothing to a topic, maybe they should just be banned anyway. the fact that you'd even have to clarify that is honestly circumventing BG darwinism and i just don't know about that.

[Alleya]

Darwinism.

[Ksandra]

slow your roll sweetheart. two words for you: "mod sass." mods didn't enjoy it when people had all kinds of shit to say about their practices, so they made it bannable. well i'm not a mod, so i can't turn my annoyance over semantics into a bannable offense.

wait what does this have to do with the topic we're discussing? now we're onto mod sass? thought we were talking about leaky and darwinism. I don't use the mod sass rule. not sure how it relates to your statement. AFAIK no one has been given an infraction for mod sass in a long ass time.

[Charismatic]

So infraction is because spam was ALLOWED (i.e. slipped in) to enter.

So, how is this any different from the other spam post designation then? Maybe it's still not sinking in...

[Plow]

slow your roll sweetheart. two words for you: "mod sass." mods didn't enjoy it when people had all kinds of shit to say about their practices, so they made it bannable. well i'm not a mod, so i can't turn my annoyance over semantics into a bannable offense.

mod sass got changed to "when you don't know what the fuck" quite a while ago

I assure you, 99% of the time if you're not being belligerent, you're perfectly safe to "sass" a mod when you *do* know what the fuck.


They don't show their rules to us all, but I'm pretty certain at this point they even have a rule where a mod can't even mod a thread they've actively posted in.

[Charismatic]

They don't show their rules to us all

Not addressing the point of your post because, honestly, I didn't care to read it all.
However, this is a problem.

I don't understand the point of not showing people all of the rules they are supposed to be following.

[Sera]

slow your roll sweetheart. two words for you: "mod sass." mods didn't enjoy it when people had all kinds of shit to say about their practices, so they made it bannable. well i'm not a mod, so i can't turn my annoyance over semantics into a bannable offense.

I've said this all week, apparently EVERY MOD seems to not be a fan of that rule (because when you mention it, whoever the mod around when you do goes: "wellllllllll I don't like that rule.......") -- sounds like if none of the mods like the rule, it should be removed eh?

[Charismatic]

I've said this all week, apparently EVERY MOD seems to not be a fan of that rule (because when you mention it, whoever the mod around when you do goes: "wellllllllll I don't like that rule.......") -- sounds like if none of the mods like the rule, it should be removed eh?

You'd think so, since apparently with the explanation of the addition of the 'Darwinism' rule it was revealed that things that mods want have a direct impact on the rules of the forum.


They supposedly wanted a Darwinism rule and got it, they don't want the mod sass rule... that should mean it'll be stricken from the rule books, right?

[Sera]

You'd think so, since apparently with the explanation of the addition of the 'Darwinism' rule it was revealed that things that mods want have a direct impact on the rules of the forum.


They supposedly wanted a Darwinism rule and got it, they don't want the mod sass rule... that should mean it'll be stricken from the rule books, right?

Meh you would think so... but the whole "mods having a say" thing I think was bullshit from the get go -- just a convenient way for an admin to pass the buck, sell out the mods.

[Charismatic]

Meh you would think so... but the whole "mods having a say" thing I think was bullshit from the get go -- just a convenient way for an admin to pass the buck, sell out the mods.

Oh, I know... I called Sono out on the next post.

Spoiler: show

Funny that the mods were supposedly asking for it yet none of the ones who were have balls enough to admit that, only things I've been hearing lately from any of the mods who aren't on some secrecy shit is that they weren't for it... I just don't know.

It's not like you have a track record of telling the whole truth or just not blatantly lying so I don't think your word holds much weight.

But if he wants to say that's the case... I want to see him back that shit up.

[Ivve]

point is it's kind of hard to be taken seriously when you're calling someone else butthurt if you actually have rules to cover your own butthurtness. truly clearly darwinism clearly clearly