3/10, lrn2troll, and what it means to YOU

I don't like getting lumped in with trolls just because I don't really mind the ratings or other usage of memes.

This specifically has to do with troll ratings.

Not ratings in general, unless you are spamming with nothing but a rating with no actual content.

n ∕ m ∣ n,m ∈ ℤ

idk generally when I see these I take them as "surely, you can't be serious!" and, come to think of it, I don't think we'd be losing much if we said something more civil (like that) instead of just giving a rational number and a sarcastic remark.

This post has been edited by Lightning on Jun 25 2009, 10:49 AM

i'm not seeing it.

no really, where is anyone fighting for a right to troll?

Wait, why's anyone fighting?

Does this **** actually matter?

Blindly following rules isn't going to get you anywhere.

Like I've said, the vast majority of the time it's completely harmless, what's the point in all this whining about it? It's causing more drama than the trolling itself.

I'm sorry, but I cannot see any logic behind this statement.

and breaking them is going to get you banned!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

has nothing to do with an online message board where everyone's free to join and leave as they please and where the justice of the rules isn't even in question

*thumbs up*

This **** is important to me, so I'll fight it.

sucks to be tony trombone

no, but it did serve to shoot down your point that there's no logic behind deciding not to blindly follow rules



and I mean anyone who contests the rules here in an attempt to achieve better "justice" isn't attempting to free themselves from legal shackles or anything; like you said, they're free to leave. people offering such arguments would probably be doing so to try to make this a better place / more successful message board, since a good message board will generally have a "just" set of rules.

I'm afraid it didn't shoot down anything. In the context of this thread the only kind of "rules" concerned are forum rules.

And in any case Kyori's implication seemed to imply that in general "blindly" following rules was fruitless, which it clearly is not in the case of forums. So I still find my statement to be valid.


Probably nitpicking, but oh well. I'll be exiting this thread now, as any really relevant discussion seems to have been settled.

looks like you all missed my point entirely.


What I'm saying is that trolls should only be punished if they do it frequently. If you're going to punish troll messages, then go ahead and ban half of MFGG, see where that gets you!

I had something to say in response to this but I couldn't think of anything that wouldn't contradict anything posted earlier. Someone help me out here.

Until then, make up a better argument Starman because honestly, yours is rather faulty.

I can understand why people are worried about this rule. I've seen stupid/bad rules and enforcement of them kill boards- after all, you can freely join and leave this place, so a bunch of stupid rules could kill the board easily.

but this rule as well as cracking down on trolling isn't really unreasonable at all. Especially if they're going to tell us beforehand AND tell us what qualifies as trolling to them. The staff are doing everything in their power to inform us of what they don't think is good for the board, and it seems pretty reasonable to begin with, so I don't expect too much drama from this or much trouble at all really.

after all they could just one day decide to ban for this stuff, not warn anyone, and then we're back to the trial member issue

why don't we just write a filter for it like we did with csb and RACE CAR and probably a bunch of other things i'm forgetting

not only are filters silly to begin with

but the ratings are pretty dynamic anyway, and the staff don't want to ban ratings in general- just troll ones.

Arguing that punishing someone for trolling once is stupid is a faulty argument indeed.


What was I thinking?!