New Code of Conduct

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Superbeast:

Oooh, I thought of another suggestion! Not really code-of-conduct based but more moderation generally.

On a lot of other websites I am on, the moderators pick a particular text-colour to use as their "mod voice" to help distinguish between regular posting and posting to redirect a thread. It is particularly useful once you get into quote-chains and stuff, where a mod can clearly steer in a reply to one group and participate on-topic in the same post. It is also helpful for the rare instance that a moderator has to edit a post, the notice/context can be clearly displayed thanks to the difference in font colour.

I also know that in the past there has been some confusion when someone (be it mod or staff) have joined in a light-hearted thread and joked around about banning people, and someone else comes in and misunderstood and gone on a moderation rant.

Now, other forums let mods pick their own colours because they have activated forum signatures where such can be explained, so maybe there should just be one colour on the CoC for the mods to use?

I like this idea, actually. I think using a deep blue like our usernames could be a good choice, plus it's easy enough to spot.

The only problem is getting Mods into the habit of using it, some Mods have their own style so they might not feel as happy about having to learn colour coding.

Richard Gozin-Yu:

runic knight:

DoPo:

Wait, how has it been decreased? It has always been 6 months for -1 level, 2 years for a reset, ever since I joined, at least.

Here is the previous version of the CoC and it's the very last section called "Amnesty".

Here is the version from the 11th of October 2011 - its the most recent snapshot that the Wayback Machine had from before my joining - this was the version at the time I registered.

Finally, here is the version from the 15th of May 2011 which is the closest one to your join date that was archived.

The same policy seems to have been in place for about half a decade now - it hasn't been lowered.

huh, wonder why I was thinking it dropped two. ah well, the points raised still stand about the issues with that whole thing I guess.

If they're going to commit to the "Health Bar" idea, which I think is a bad idea by the way, it doesn't make sense to make it reset too quickly.

The reasons why it's a bad idea are pretty obvious though, and begin with the problem of making every "bar worthy" offense fundamentally identical. Getting tipped into a suspension or ban for any one, is the cumulative effect of the ones before it. It also means that a collection of relatively minor mistakes are ultimately treated the same as a collection of more deliberate acts. Most of all though, it means that the last few warnings take on a stupid significance. I can't believe that mods treat the warning that bans someone, like the warning that gets them their first green mark. And yet, that first green mark and the last one, are equally weighted in this system.

There is a reason why basically no sites use this, in any form, ever, and never really have. It's not like it's a new idea, it's just a really bad idea. It has all of the downsides of mandatory minimum sentences, and none of the potential benefits. Any sense of accountability it provides is bound to be illusory, which I gather has been true if the reaction to the passive aggression rule is anything to go by. I'm sure it's just going to stay since it's always been there, and coming from another site I guess I don't have much input.

It's not a good system though.

Good points, though I think the time to decrease strikes, especially ones that are given for minor violations in the first place, is actually making the problem worse overall. You take the "all strikes are equal weight" problem and then add it to a system where only time removes strikes, and it discourages some long term and frequent posters from staying around when they get a couple strikes. Sure, you will have a group of regulars that know the system and know what to avoid, but that is far from all posters. And the strikes earned in the learning process for minor, unintentional things carry the same weight as the occasional troll calling other posters asshole, making it discouraging to see, even more so when some actively aggressive and hostile posters seem to get fewer strikes while piddly stuff is punished severely. Little wonder many users would leave seeing that sort of thing.

Even worse, people trying to avoid strikes learn the habits of other posters not getting strikes as a sort of evolution of forum users. Now in a normal system, that sort of learning is fine. But in a system where all strikes are equal, you see people who learn to avoid the strikes because of technicality rather than lack of intent and having that mimicked by other users. When all strikes are equal, those who avoid any strikes propogate and those who don't eventually get banned (or leave instead of waiting for strike decreases). This shapes the behavior and attitude of the community. Now previously this fostered passive-aggressiveness, sniping and bypasses such as attacking groups instead of individuals. While the rules have been adjusted to target those negative behaviors specifically and that is an improvement, I have to wonder if that isn't just a patch on the underlying problem then really addressing that.

IceForce:

n0e:
It was intentional, as with the lack of "low content" posts being something we worry about. Necroing posts isn't something I feel is worth worrying about and the old "low content" rule was a bit harsh for my taste.

One of the things the low-content rule guarded against was people quoting someone and just putting "This" under the quote with nothing else added. That sort of posting behavior can often be seen on other internet forums which have no low-content rule.

Are "This" -style posts still being moderated?

This.


Okay, seriously though, I'd still be interested in an answer to this question of mine.

IceForce:

IceForce:

n0e:
It was intentional, as with the lack of "low content" posts being something we worry about. Necroing posts isn't something I feel is worth worrying about and the old "low content" rule was a bit harsh for my taste.

One of the things the low-content rule guarded against was people quoting someone and just putting "This" under the quote with nothing else added. That sort of posting behavior can often be seen on other internet forums which have no low-content rule.

Are "This" -style posts still being moderated?

This.


Okay, seriously though, I'd still be interested in an answer to this question of mine.

*shakes fist* Why I oughta....

:P

Sorry, yes, good point. No, simply posting 'this', I think everyone can agree, does the square root of sod-all for everyone, so in those cases we'll provide a friendly nudge not to do it and escalate from there if we need to do so.

But the post you just made is actually an example of what may have been called a low-content post in the past, but actually made me laugh and had a point to make so, yeah, that kind of 'low-content' post is good.

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:
(Snip).

I've certainly seen some people make posts that are pretty provocative whilst claiming they're 'just asking' or similar. You can chalk almost anything up to ignorance, though, because ignorance is the default position on any subject. The difficulty is in deciding when that crosses over into what I mentioned, while trying to keep treatment equal in all situations. I believe that post is being reviewed by the mods. In future when you're addressing a specific post or person in moderation complaints, using the PM system is preferable as, like the flagging system, it avoids unpleasantness from disagreements carrying over into the forums and across threads.

Drathnoxis:
I'm really glad to see that Low Content is no longer an infraction. I have seen so many good posters banned because of that rule!

That raises a bit of a problem, though. Are the people who were banned for low content going to be unbanned?

Speaking more generally, what is the policy on users being banned for breaking a particular individual rule that later gets retracted from the rules? Because it seems a bit unfair that permabans should remain in place due to a rule-break that's not actually against the rules anymore.

Barbas:

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:
(Snip).

I've certainly seen some people make posts that are pretty provocative whilst claiming they're 'just asking' or similar. You can chalk almost anything up to ignorance, though, because ignorance is the default position on any subject. The difficulty is in deciding when that crosses over into what I mentioned, while trying to keep treatment equal in all situations. I believe that post is being reviewed by the mods. In future when you're addressing a specific post or person in moderation complaints, using the PM system is preferable as, like the flagging system, it avoids unpleasantness from disagreements carrying over into the forums and across threads.

Yeah and I apologize for bring a disagreement from another thread into this one. Having said that it wasn't specifically a moderation complaint, but rather an example highlighting the issue I'm talking about. The other thing is that I believe ignorance really shouldn't excuse bad behavior. Just my thoughts, especially because I've been subject quite often to people feigning ignorance so they could disrespect me for being trans. As a general experience both in the real world and online, not specifically pertaining to The Escapist. Since I'm very personally familiar with the tactic, well, it does honestly make me exceptionally angry, it's become a pet peeve of mine anymore. Again I apologize.

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:
Yeah and I apologize for bring a disagreement from another thread into this one. Having said that it wasn't specifically a moderation complaint, but rather an example highlighting the issue I'm talking about. The other thing is that I believe ignorance really shouldn't excuse bad behavior. Just my thoughts, especially because I've been subject quite often to people feigning ignorance so they could disrespect me for being trans. As a general experience both in the real world and online, not specifically pertaining to The Escapist. Since I'm very personally familiar with the tactic, well, it does honestly make me exceptionally angry, it's become a pet peeve of mine anymore. Again I apologize.

Just to mention, you shouldn't feel the need to apologise for getting angry about someone who went out of their way to insult you.

SolidState:

Drathnoxis:
I'm really glad to see that Low Content is no longer an infraction. I have seen so many good posters banned because of that rule!

That raises a bit of a problem, though. Are the people who were banned for low content going to be unbanned?

Speaking more generally, what is the policy on users being banned for breaking a particular individual rule that later gets retracted from the rules? Because it seems a bit unfair that permabans should remain in place due to a rule-break that's not actually against the rules anymore.

Well...arguably, they broke the rules that were set at that time, so it should stand.

Not that I'm a fan of that outcome- I miss some folks too.

If we allow that, then you could feasibly make an argument for applying current rules retroactively. Not that I think they'd do either one of those things, as it'd be a good bit of work and folks who've been banned for forever are likely not making a point of logging in when they can't post so they probably wouldn't even know if they were unbanned to begin with.

NewClassic:

Side Note: What's the policy on avatars?

Same rules as would exist in posts. Keep it PG-13, avoid excessive sexual content or violence, don't be offensive, but otherwise you're golden.

Excessive sexual content? So, artistic nudity is potentially allowed, just not porn?

LostGryphon:
Well...arguably, they broke the rules that were set at that time, so it should stand.

Not that I'm a fan of that outcome- I miss some folks too.

Worth noting that people who have been permabanned have been given a second chance after a while - a year or so. Vault101 has returned and even Zeel himself got unbanned for a (very short) while. Retroactive ban lifting is not really needed, as permabans aren't that permanent.

FileTrekker:

Drathnoxis:
Also, I'm a little nervous to see "Advertising" as an instaban with no appeal. Like, I can understand it's necessary for spambots and such, but what if somebody who's been here for 5 years with 6000 posts just made something that they are really proud of. They temporarily forget the rule and rush to the forum to share, and then BAM, permaban!

What is even considered advertising anyway? If I found something really cool and make a thread about it, posting a link, could I be permabanned for advertising? Is there a way to tell the difference between someone posting something they made themselves and posting something somebody else made that they think is cool?

I personally have had a lot of experience with this problem over the years, and as moderators we're pretty astute at noticing all the hallmarks of someone who is here purely for their own advertising gains over a long-time member who has earned the right to share their own personal project or something of that nature.

Obviously it's never acceptable to post advertisements for profitable ventures or scams and things of that nature, but no, you're not going to get an infraction or a ban for sharing something awesome! Even if it's something you made, like a mod / map or whatever the case may be.

I did get an infraction once for posting a video of an Alliance Tournament match in EVE I flew in. Then I appealed and it was cleared up because I was allowed to appeal.

I see everything twice.

DoPo:

Worth noting that people who have been permabanned have been given a second chance after a while - a year or so. Vault101 has returned and even Zeel himself got unbanned for a (very short) while. Retroactive ban lifting is not really needed, as permabans aren't that permanent.

Good point.

Not really sure what the official standpoint is on that kinda thing, but there's certainly precedent.

LostGryphon:

DoPo:

Worth noting that people who have been permabanned have been given a second chance after a while - a year or so. Vault101 has returned and even Zeel himself got unbanned for a (very short) while. Retroactive ban lifting is not really needed, as permabans aren't that permanent.

Good point.

Not really sure what the official standpoint is on that kinda thing, but there's certainly precedent.

I'm fairly sure that is the official stance - if you get permabanned, you can eventually come back. It's not stated in the rules, but it has happened - Vault101 and Zeel aren't even the only ones, just two names I remembered - there was few more. Not a lot, mind you, but I imagine it's not because the rest who wanted to be back were denied but because they didn't want to be back. Which is understandable, as well.

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:
(Snip).

That's all right. Always flag what you think a mod needs to see. Guidelines are being worked on that'll hopefully help us make the site a more pleasant place for you to be.

LostGryphon:
Excessive sexual content? So, artistic nudity is potentially allowed, just not porn?

Yep. There's even an artist thread floating around in Off-Topic with such things, and it's been around for years. Generally speaking, it's better to avoid nudity where possible, but as long as there's a distinction between nude art and erotic art, then it should be a non-issue.

DoPo:

LostGryphon:

DoPo:

Worth noting that people who have been permabanned have been given a second chance after a while - a year or so. Vault101 has returned and even Zeel himself got unbanned for a (very short) while. Retroactive ban lifting is not really needed, as permabans aren't that permanent.

Good point.

Not really sure what the official standpoint is on that kinda thing, but there's certainly precedent.

I'm fairly sure that is the official stance - if you get permabanned, you can eventually come back. It's not stated in the rules, but it has happened - Vault101 and Zeel aren't even the only ones, just two names I remembered - there was few more. Not a lot, mind you, but I imagine it's not because the rest who wanted to be back were denied but because they didn't want to be back. Which is understandable, as well.

Or they didn't even know it was an option. It'd actually be pretty nice to make it official and either have a clause in the rules that states you can make a second appeal after a year to be unbanned, or just get a year long ban when your bar fills up and have that be separate from a permaban.

So are console wars still verboten?

Richard Gozin-Yu:

Terminalchaos:
So are console wars still verboten?

Now that was a hasty edit, and it makes what you originally posted seem like it might have been less than totally honest.

0
Or perhaps I hit enter early and was fixing things and decided to put something unrelated rather than have a half finished thought that may bother others instead of a fully finished one.

Assuming it is less than totally honest seems to be a combative stance and borders on passive aggression imo.

Edit: It denotes an assumption of combativeness and opposition that indicates that you are not perceiving a discussion with charity and thus renders your arguments suspect. Enough of this bickering, why be rude when I was trying to fix something to make it more palatable?

Terminalchaos:

Richard Gozin-Yu:

Terminalchaos:
So are console wars still verboten?

Now that was a hasty edit, and it makes what you originally posted seem like it might have been less than totally honest.

0
Or perhaps I hit enter early and was fixing things and decided to put something unrelated rather than have a half finished thought that may bother others instead of a fully finished one.

It was a finished thought, it just happened to be one that wouldn't have stood up to any scrutiny.

Terminalchaos:
Assuming it is less than totally honest seems to be a combative stance and borders on passive aggression imo.

Occam's Razor doesn't have a stance.

I'm being really forthright, and I don't want to see the new norm become quick edits after totally unrelated digs at other people. If you can't stand by what you said, don't say it in the first place. That's not passive or aggressive, just direct. Maybe there needs to be a rule about editing for that specific purpose, although I'd think it would be covered under existing rules against trolling.

Richard Gozin-Yu:

Terminalchaos:

Richard Gozin-Yu:

Now that was a hasty edit, and it makes what you originally posted seem like it might have been less than totally honest.

0
Or perhaps I hit enter early and was fixing things and decided to put something unrelated rather than have a half finished thought that may bother others instead of a fully finished one.

It was a finished thought, it just happened to be one that wouldn't have stood up to any scrutiny.

Terminalchaos:
Assuming it is less than totally honest seems to be a combative stance and borders on passive aggression imo.

Occam's Razor doesn't have a stance.

I'm being really forthright, and I don't want to see the new norm become quick edits after totally unrelated digs at other people. If you can't stand by what you said, don't say it in the first place. That's not passive or aggressive, just direct. Maybe there needs to be a rule about editing for that specific purpose, although I'd think it would be covered under existing rules against trolling.

It was not a finished thought, you were not in my head and thus did not know what else I was thinking.
You're being passive aggressive or direct in combative and assumptive way. You assume negativity and hostility opn my part and do not treat my arguments with charity. I have the right to change an edit after rereading for what I perceive as intent. Especially if I did it within a minute. Telling me I am trolling is being combative. I have the right to decide not to start a shitstorm and instead take what I read with charity as opposed to be offended at it. You have no right to tell me to change what I say or not say it in the first place. That is interfering with my ability to express myself, especially since I did an edit to avoid an issue before most people could see it.
Please stop implying negative intent or dishonesty on my part. I find it offensive in this case.
You assigning negative intent to me is furthering the issue you seem to decry. I am honestly offended by what you are saying to me and how you are saying it.

Assuming I was trying to troll violates Occam's razor since what I stated was a more simple explanation that fit what occured.

Terminalchaos:

Richard Gozin-Yu:

Terminalchaos:

0
Or perhaps I hit enter early and was fixing things and decided to put something unrelated rather than have a half finished thought that may bother others instead of a fully finished one.

It was a finished thought, it just happened to be one that wouldn't have stood up to any scrutiny.

Terminalchaos:
Assuming it is less than totally honest seems to be a combative stance and borders on passive aggression imo.

Occam's Razor doesn't have a stance.
It was not a finished thought, you were not in my head and thus did not know what else I was thinkin.
I'm being really forthright, and I don't want to see the new norm become quick edits after totally unrelated digs at other people. If you can't stand by what you said, don't say it in the first place. That's not passive or aggressive, just direct. Maybe there needs to be a rule about editing for that specific purpose, although I'd think it would be covered under existing rules against trolling.

You're being passive aggressive. I have the right to change an edit after rereading for what I perceive as intent. Especially if I did it within a minute. Telling me I am trolling is being combative. I have the right to decide not to start a shitstorm and instead take what I read with charity as opposed to be offended at it. You have no right to tell me to change what I say or not say it in the first place. That is interfering with my ability to express myself, especially since I did an edit to avoid an issue before most people could see it.
Please stop implying negative intent or dishonesty on my part. I find it offensive in this case.
You assigning negative intent to me is furthering the issue you seem to decry. I am honestly offended by what you are saying to me and how you are saying it.

Changing your post from what you originally had (your reply to Pluvia denying responsibility), immediately after to an unrelated and innocuous question is not what you're trying to portray it as, any more than my entirely direct accusations and concerns are passive. I'll leave the rest of this to the mods to deal with.

Richard Gozin-Yu:

Terminalchaos:

Richard Gozin-Yu:

It was a finished thought, it just happened to be one that wouldn't have stood up to any scrutiny.

Occam's Razor doesn't have a stance.
It was not a finished thought, you were not in my head and thus did not know what else I was thinkin.
I'm being really forthright, and I don't want to see the new norm become quick edits after totally unrelated digs at other people. If you can't stand by what you said, don't say it in the first place. That's not passive or aggressive, just direct. Maybe there needs to be a rule about editing for that specific purpose, although I'd think it would be covered under existing rules against trolling.

You're being passive aggressive. I have the right to change an edit after rereading for what I perceive as intent. Especially if I did it within a minute. Telling me I am trolling is being combative. I have the right to decide not to start a shitstorm and instead take what I read with charity as opposed to be offended at it. You have no right to tell me to change what I say or not say it in the first place. That is interfering with my ability to express myself, especially since I did an edit to avoid an issue before most people could see it.
Please stop implying negative intent or dishonesty on my part. I find it offensive in this case.
You assigning negative intent to me is furthering the issue you seem to decry. I am honestly offended by what you are saying to me and how you are saying it.

Changing your post from what you originally had (your reply to Pluvia denying responsibility), immediately after to an unrelated and innocuous question is not what you're trying to portray it as, any more than my entirely direct accusations and concerns are passive. I'll leave the rest of this to the mods to deal with.

Changing a post to reflect that I read more of what the person I responded to had said and decided to perceive their argument differently is my right. You trying to tell me what I'm trying to portray things as is hilarious since you're most likely not telepathic. Stop assigning negativity to my posts and questioning my character without cause. I find it offensive and hope the mods deal with you.

I find your interpretation of my statements and action to be unfair and combative. I did not deny responsibility. I realized the person to whom pluvia was referring to was not me and thus changed my response. From the nature of the original snip I thought it was an insult at me and after reading more posts realized they were referring to an argument from another forum. Please stop harassing me indirectly now.

There was no denial of responsibility and if you read that into what I posted then you are looking for an argument and refuse to perceive things with charity thus rendering you ineligible for logical discourse until you change that.

TLDR I reread something and edited it out for the sake of not starting an issue. You press it on, insinuate insults about me and make an issue when one was not necessary and refused to see my arguments with charity.

The above exchange seems to be a good example of "no backseat moderating", "mark it and move on", why those rules exist, and what happens when they aren't followed.

Regarding making digs at other users, then editing your post: if you quote that user, they'll receive the original message in their inbox, so that person could always just screenshot it and report or something.

But if someone legitimately realizes that what they typed was rude, and goes back to fix it, I don't think they should be penalized for trying to honestly correct their mistake. If it makes others assume bad faith, then that's on them, I would say.

Question to the mods:

Is telling someone else "I'm reporting you" and/or "I'm going to block you" an infraction-worthy offense? It seems like those words don't have any utility other than attempting to anger the other person. Just block/report them in silence and move on, right?

Houseman:
The above exchange seems to be a good example of "no backseat moderating", "mark it and move on", why those rules exist, and what happens when they aren't followed.

Regarding making digs at other users, then editing your post: if you quote that user, they'll receive the original message in their inbox, so that person could always just screenshot it and report or something.

But if someone legitimately realizes that what they typed was rude, and goes back to fix it, I don't think they should be penalized for trying to honestly correct their mistake. If it makes other assume bad faith, then that's on them, I would say.

Pluvia will see what I posted and hopefully realize I was confused by the snip.
Thank you for the bad faith comment. What I was typing wasn't rude, per se, it was just a reaction to something that I hastily realized was referring to someone else. Suddenly I'm being told off like I'm rude. Now I'm reminded of the hostility and lack of the rhetorical principle of charity that drove me from here years ago.

Thank you, Houseman, for understanding it wasn't in any way bad faith. Nice to know you don't automatically sees hostility where it is not intended. Perhaps this community has hope still.

After reading what you said I will edit the report sentence so it doesn't bother anyone. Still trying to figure out the new rules so sorry if any misunderstandings.

I've warned people before in this thread about backseat moderating and derailing the topic, and the above exchange was completely uncalled for.

Richard Gozin-Yu, people can edit posts for any reason, and it is not for you to derail a topic to call that out, especially in that way. If you have a problem with what someone has said in a post, either original or edited, flag it up privately to a moderator. Don't backseat moderate and derail topics like that please.

People are free to edit their posts after they make them, regardless of the circumstances, I'd rather have someone blow off a little steam then instantly regret it and correct their mistake then prevent them from doing that, aside from all the perfectly legitimate reasons for editing after posting.

I trust this is clear and the topic can move on to what it was intended for.

Thanks.

Houseman:

Is telling someone else "I'm reporting you" and/or "I'm going to block you" an infraction-worthy offense? It seems like those words don't have any utility other than attempting to anger the other person. Just block/report them in silence and move on, right?

Yes, please don't do that.

Take all your issues to the staff privately, you're exactly right that all this is doing is escalating a problem and not doing anything to improve it.

FileTrekker:
I've warned people before in this thread about backseat moderating and derailing the topic, and the above exchange was completely uncalled for.

Richard Gozin-Yu, people can edit posts for any reason, and it is not for you to derail a topic to call that out, especially in that way. If you have a problem with what someone has said in a post, either original or quoted, flag it up privately to a moderator. Don't backseat moderate and derail topics like that please.

People are free to edit their posts after they make them, regardless of the circumstances, I'd rather have someone blow off a little steam then instantly regret it and correct their mistake then prevent them from doing that, aside from all the perfectly legitimate reasons for editing after posting.

I trust this is clear and the topic can move on to what it was intended for.

Thanks.

Are there any strictly gaming related subjects that are still considered too contentious or controversial to bring up? I recall years ago certain console vs console and console vs pc posts blowing up in a manner that truly surprised me. I'm assuming civil tone and game appropriate subjects are a given but are there more cautions?

Terminalchaos:
Are there any strictly gaming related subjects that are still considered too contentious or controversial to bring up? I recall years ago certain console vs console and console vs pc posts blowing up in a manner that truly surprised me. I'm assuming civil tone and game appropriate subjects are a given but are there more cautions?

There's nothing in the COC to prohibit any type of gaming related topic, we're not about preventing discussion of a topic, it's how people behave within that topic. There's nothing wrong with a console vs console thread, for example, in principle, but it's probably going to cause us more work :p

Regardless, that's what we're here for. One can only hope people know how to handle such discussions in a civil and mature way, and those who can't adjust to that don't have to be there, basically.

I'll believe in change when I see it.
Moderation here has always been shall we say partisan in nature and I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:
*SNIP*

If I might propose a compromise between you and the other poster, perhaps reword the rule to this?

Discrimination and Perverted Remarks:

Discrimination will not be tolerated on these forums, particularly in regards to racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, and religious beliefs.

Perverse remarks will be subject to the PG-13 standard.

As far as my comments on the changes, I like 'em, particularly the addition of rule 0. It'll be a nice change to see that people can't skirt the rules by "Attacking the idea and not the person, but I'm totally attacking the person".

FileTrekker:
If you have a problem with what someone has said in a post, either original or edited, flag it up privately to a moderator.

Do moderators have the ability to see previous edits (versions) of posts?

FileTrekker:
People are free to edit their posts after they make them, regardless of the circumstances, I'd rather have someone blow off a little steam then instantly regret it and correct their mistake then prevent them from doing that, aside from all the perfectly legitimate reasons for editing after posting.

Wait so, let me get this straight, we can insult anyone we like, as long as we edit our post afterwards?

IceForce:
Wait so, let me get this straight, we can insult anyone we like, as long as we edit our post afterwards?

I didn't say that at all. You can't insult anyone you like and then edit it right afterwards as a way to get away with insulting people at all.

We can show understanding in specific circumstances. I said it's preferable for someone to get caught up in the heat of the moment and show remorse right away than to just have their mistakes permanently engraved for all to see. That does not mean there are no consequences to those actions. Try gaming the system and it'll be delt with under Rule Zero.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked