Are some parts of the rules now antiquated?

meeze said:
Here is my stance on people like Windy, Kire, and WSM. They dug their own graves in the minds of many. While there are people who like them (I personally think WSM is a good guy and hang out with him time to time), defending them is useless. They set the bar for themselves and it is low as far as reputation goes.

If someone holds a grudge against WSM, there is nothing I can say to stop that, because WSM himself chose to talk all that shit. Windy herself chose to act how she did, and Kire himself chose to act how he did. For the most part they still act up, and the "defenders" are turning a blind eye saying "well what about that guy over there".

Well, a convicted felon committing another crime is going to get a harsher penalty than someone who commits their first offense. Their bad rep didn't happen over night, they spammed the boards with useless nonsense and flamed for the smallest offenses, and now they are stuck with what they put out for people to see.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you. I'm not trying to defend or cover up what has been done in the past. If a thread comes up wondering why soandso has been banned, then there shouldn't be a hidden reason...but what I am talking about is unprovoked small jabs. One example was in a post a little while ago, one poster said "For a good time, PM <insert name here>" or something like that. The next poster just said "Windaria" That to me isn't necessary, the thread wasn't about her, it was just a petty jab and distasteful in my eyes.
 
The QCDN rules supposedly exist to serve the interests of members and maintain an amiable environment for the community. Kire, Windaria etc explicitly disrespected these rules and as a result, they were banned. They no longer deserve the protection which members are entitled to because they are no longer part of this community.

The whole "but they can't defend themselves" argument if pretty base if you ask me, because it can be applied to ANYONE outside of QCDN. There is no rule stating that the names listed in "Neighbourhood Watch" have to be members before they can be named, or declaring that all politicians discussed negatively in "Off-Topic" must be members. Why not? These parties can't defend themselves either if they are not registered to plead their cases...

Paint it whichever pretty colour you want, but the rules are crystal clear:
Communications clearly insulting other QCDN members, individually or as a group (i.e. linkshells as a whole), directly or indirectly, are not allowed. This includes, but is not limited to: name-calling ("You're an idiot", "You moron"); direct insults and orders ("Screw you", "Go kill yourself"); insinuations ("Are you stupid or something?"); or insults towards family ("Your mom..."). Repeated condescending and/or sarcastic posts toward a linkshell or a member can also constitute harassment.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
To drive the point home, her own actions made people dislike her a whole lot, some people still want to take shots at her. I can't say I blame them a whole lot, she earned her reputation, she can live with it.

People don't have a problem making fun of celebrities for past actions (micheal jackson, GW, clinton) I don't see why she should be an acception to peoples jokes.

Wonder if your sig applies to her lawl.
 
Banned people ignored the rules. The rules shouldnt be defending them.
 
I still don't get it. Basically what you all are saying is that after someone gets banned for doing something, everyone else on the entire site should be allowed to do exactly what that person was banned for? How does that make any sense whatsoever? idc who you do and don't like honestly, but when a site allows rules like this to take place, there are some major issues. "LOL I ban j00 but then I do the same thing and it's a-ok!" Oh well, depending on how this topic goes I might just find somewhere else to hang out that isn't full of hypocrisy and stupidity.
 
I'm not speaking for the site by what I said. Its my opinion. I don't see any problems with calling someone who got banned for being a bitch towards everyone on the boards a...well...bitch.
 
I don't either, member or not. A spade is a spade, something I said since the flameboard went down... However, if you're going to make it be a rule... It's interesting that it applies to both the banned and the current non-members.
 
Garvin said:
I don't either, member or not. A spade is a spade, something I said since the flameboard went down... However, if you're going to make it be a rule... It's interesting that it applies to both the banned and the current non-members.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're arguing for or against me, lol. Maybe I'm just too tired ._.
 
I'm not rightly sure either, haha
Wasn't particularly going for either angle, just expressing my opinion.
 
I don't even think there is anyone besides me trying to look into getting the rules changed/modified to deal with people who have been banned, and a few other things. Maybe I just wasn't cut out to be a mod here. ^^'
 
Well, I just think whatever you guys do needs to apply globally to everyone. All of these petty loopholes are ruining the site and creating a bunch of annoying bias.

If you guys want flaming, make a specific board for it. Then you can flame banned users till your balls drop and you feel high and manly if that's what it takes. But until there's a specific place where you can flame ANYONE AND EVERYONE, I don't think people should be given the license to just selectively flame certain people.
 
Rappa said:
Well, I just think whatever you guys do needs to apply globally to everyone. All of these petty loopholes are ruining the site and creating a bunch of annoying bias.

If you guys want flaming, make a specific board for it. Then you can flame banned users till your balls drop and you feel high and manly if that's what it takes. But until there's a specific place where you can flame ANYONE AND EVERYONE, I don't think people should be given the license to just selectively flame certain people.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you.
 
The rules should be uniformly enforced but to be realistic - one persons spam is another persons funny so its always going to be open to a bit of interpretation by the reader.

Could we draft a million rules and micromanage the user experience here on qcdn? Possibly but this place wouldnt be much fun after that. Alot of things come down to the simple concept of common sense.

That being said, I think what we will do is divide the rules to cover the site as a whole and allow each of the mods to set the tone / rules for the forums they run because there are naunces we are getting caught up in that are more acceptable in certain forums than in others, like off topic spam.
 
Reeve said:
The rules should be uniformly enforced but to be realistic - one persons spam is another persons funny so its always going to be open to a bit of interpretation by the reader.
Click to expand...

I agree there, but something like flaming another user is a lot more clear cut. You can't really argue that "you're a stupid shithead" was being polite and friendly ;)

Reeve said:
That being said, I think what we will do is divide the rules to cover the site as a whole and allow each of the mods to set the tone / rules for the forums they run because there are naunces we are getting caught up in that are more acceptable in certain forums than in others, like off topic spam.
Click to expand...

I'm mostly again interested in the scenario covered in this topic. Where will the line be drawn for flaming, and who will be allowable "targets"?
 
I agree with Rappa...flaming someone who doesn't (or worse yet, can't) post here isn't exactly the most honorable, let alone mature thing to do.

Not to mention, admitting that you'd talk crap behind someone else's back knowing they can't defend themselves? I've seen people try to make others look bad all the time, but admitting something like that above and beyond does it to themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top