Peace QCDN.

[Nasya]

It's okay to not like the new rules. But honestly what do you think you are going to accomplish by coming here and just being a complete ass by repeatedly breaking the rule over and over? Are you hoping to become a "martyr" or something? Because honestly no one's going to remember a week from now. Your time is better spent making a topic saying "I don't understand why we have such and such rule" and going from there.

If in the long run the rule stands, just adapt and grow to handle it. By suiciding your account you are accomplishing little more than making yourself look like a complete fool.

qft... if you actually care about these boards, or did in the past... and find it upsetting that they are changing... say something about it. Sculli has been trying to impliment changes and suggestions made in the "Whats wrong with QCDN" thread... and while many of the things that you suggest may be ignored, you have a better chance of bringing about change by trying to have a reasonable and public discussion about it... rather than just boycotting or breaking the rule(s) repeatedly.

 

[Dowzer]

Pup wasn't the origional owner of this site, Sculli was... Sculli passed the tourch to Pup... and than later came back b/c Pup stopped being active for whatever reason... so, it is entirely possible that this was one of his longstanding rules. Also, while it is best for administrators to be very clear about all of their rules, because it covers their ass... it isn't something i expect... All of the "you can" or "you have the right to" rules are often neglected in Forums, or even public charters for organizations and what not, because in general the "You can't" rules are more important, and more apt to come up.

That being said... I agree with Mokk, and some others... Saying dumb stuff will undoubtly come back and bite you in the ass... and quoting someone elses poor choice of words or sentiment is hardly flaming them, or even harassing them.

/shrug

btw Eulore, (please post in response to this) did Shaid ever ask you to remove the quote yourself?

I should've included that I don't remember Sculli ever excersizing this rule either. The main point of this arguement is that he may have possibly made this rule up, to simply give remorse towards a member. Maybe he felt sorry for her? I don't know. It could be an outstanding rule, but honestly myself and others have never seen it.

 

[Dowzer]

qft... if you actually care about these boards, or did in the past... and find it upsetting that they are changing... say something about it. Sculli has been trying to impliment changes and suggestions made in the "Whats wrong with QCDN" thread... and while many of the things that you suggest may be ignored, you have a better chance of bringing about change by trying to have a reasonable and public discussion about it... rather than just boycotting or breaking the rule(s) repeatedly.

I DID THIS ALREADY. Sculli hasn't changed or added it though. I presumed that an "I disagree" button could revoke into less flaming and more of "get to the point" arguing.

It has to do with the 'Thank-you' button. I hypothesized that people who disagree with others, have no place to 'flame'/'argue' that opinion/idea/moral and result into showing up in everyday posts. This thread is a perfect example.

 

[Trippyhippy]

Again, if you have to be told that making fun of people in your sigs is out of line, you're really not worth telling things to. You'll just find something else that isn't written straight in the rules, do that, then try to argue that you should get away with it because it wasn't in the rules. They change that, you do something else that's "not in there."

It was a direct quote. She said it. How is letting people know what she said "Making fun of her"? Does that mean that noone is alowed to quote it and respond to her at all? I was always under the impression that message boards weren't for people with feelings made out of glass. Take yourself for example. You have taken more abuse in a single Sentance without getting being so broken hearted about it. You know how to take a punch, as well as throw a few yourself. She just knows how to throw them.

It was always in there. You just didn't get it. I've been in about 10 different sigs, and thought this board a monumental joke that those users weren't hammered. It is not acceptable on a forum. Has never been. You want to talk about FF having problems becuase this is the first MMO for a lot of them? Well this board must be the first for a lot of you all to be coming in here and trying (and horribly failing) to argue that you should be able to do what isn't specifically pointed out in rules. This isn't kindergarten because Sculli is watching. This is kindergarten because some really are acting like this is the first time they've ever interacted with a group on the internet.

Spirit of the terms. Learn it or leave it. That is how forum rules work.

I only played 1 other MMO. This is the only online community I have ever cared to be a part of. I was a console nerd before FFXI. Now I'm a net nerd. Go figure.

I could even see your point here if someone misquoted her. They didn't. She actually said "Just because you're too much a loser to get any form of a relationship online doesn't mean everyone has such a pitiful personality. "

I know you of all people can see the comedic value of that.

 

[Chasym]

lolz, children. its just a signature on the internet.
No one shot your dog!

 

[Mokk]

Again, if you have to be told that making fun of people in your sigs is out of line, you're really not worth telling things to. You'll just find something else that isn't written straight in the rules, do that, then try to argue that you should get away with it because it wasn't in the rules. They change that, you do something else that's "not in there."

QFT ... to a point. A very finite point.

To be entirely sure there a huge problems with the community or lack thereof to be found here on QCDN. To take things to an extreme we have laws irl becuase people didn't know better at one point and had to be told, making your ideal moot. As with the example i made earlier after my BS Sculli dropped the hammer on bets or prolonging a thread for personal gain, since then no such thing has happened, again disproving your point.

It was always in there. You just didn't get it. I've been in about 10 different sigs, and thought this board a monumental joke that those users weren't hammered. It is not acceptable on a forum. Has never been. You want to talk about FF having problems becuase this is the first MMO for a lot of them? Well this board must be the first for a lot of you all to be coming in here and trying (and horribly failing) to argue that you should be able to do what isn't specifically pointed out in rules. This isn't kindergarten because Sculli is watching. This is kindergarten because some really are acting like this is the first time they've ever interacted with a group on the internet.

Spirit of the terms. Learn it or leave it. That is how forum rules work.

it was always implied, currently the outlines for what is acceptable behavior are more open to interpretation than they were before the changes had been made, moreover there are numerous scaepgoats to point the finger at in justification of user A being a douche be it due to time constraints of staff or whatever the reason may be. At least with the FB there was a daycare for the more flamboyant/negative/mean/etc users as opposed to it's current statis. As i stated earlier the biggest problem with QCDN is that no one seems to give enough of a shit save to bitch when things don't go their way.

little to no one writes guides or anything else of use to the community.
little to no one keeps up on suggestions.
little to no one provides feedback on how things are going around here unless prompted by administration and even then the response is meager.

The bitch here is that the rule wasen't around, eulore had no way of knowing they'd get in any kinda trouble about it. Now, one can just as easily say 'ok' and not get too upset about it and remove it just as easily as someone can not go to the FB to stir up shit for no reason or skim over some asshat's post they'd rather not read or reply to, predictably these were not the outcomes reached over this issue or any of the latter issues i just mentioned.

The problem is that more than just some small core group can't be bothered to exercise these restraints which makes your 'first board' comment somewhat on the mark. Veterans know better than to rock the boat or take potshots for next to no reason, however that was the status quo here for quite some time before all this noise. They also tend to have a sense of humor and let things go. How many times have i been set straight in threads and by who? Think i can't still hold a civil conversation with you, cubs, rones, etc? You'd be wrong, it's real easy to not hold a grudge about things.

Aside from that the secondary bitch would be that the rule was previously unknown, however it was surely implied you can talk to sculli about whatever bugs ya. This previously unknown situation you could gripe to sculli about does lend itself to quite a bit of abuse tho, which is why i'd imagine it's nowhere to be found in guidelines. Also, it'd never come up in public before so that it raises a few eyebrows now was entirely predictable.

Away from that entirely is the fact that dumbasses who continuously find ways to break the rules actually help the system more than anything else. If someone's always finding a way to screw up your system and obviously so it becomes very easy to draw on them to help you better articulate your point about what is what and why it is what it is as well as defending yourself from future attacks/violations. Ref: internet security.

Yes, the best things that can be said about this situation on whole is this.

Grow up.

Get a sense of humor.

Participate or GTFO.

Make a point to be informed or don't bitch when things don't go your way.

If you think something you have to say might cause you embarrassment step away from the keyboard because there's always someone around waiting to make an example of you one way or the other.

Welcome to the internet, sore asshole's 3rd floor.

 

[Mokk]

on a completely unrelated note:

This thread? FB material. Know how to tell? thread hit 10 pages or better. To put it bluntly this is what people want to read, or to be more thorough this is the type of things people want to read. Disagreements, contraversy, arguement, insult and rebuttal, etc.

Too many people are down to just count the whole thing as a negative place on the board where nothing good ever happened and everyone just ran about with their head up their collective asses. This was not the case on large. Granted there was more than enough asshattery to go around but there were resolutions reached from time to time. Moreso many people learned what not to do via experience on the FB. As well as it being the first place many of us came when we first heard about QCDN for whatever reasons, 9/10 being 'omg someone flamed you.'

Take it with a grain of salt but as you do so consider the recently 'what's wrong with community standards' thread replies and compare them to the ammount of responses contained within to create some kind of dialogue about what people would either change, like, or don't understand.

 

[Sculli]

Go back a bit farther and it was started by a fringe group of posters/non-posters who made enough noise about the most popular portion of QCDN and called it out enough to get it removed.

Nah. I will say that there were people who disliked the FB, as there were people who embraced the FB. I say admit that I did create a thread asking about a QCDN without a FB. However, the decision to remove the FB was mine alone, and I would have done it even if there were zero supporters for it. My attitude on how people ought to interact with each other has changed from an original "bring everyone around you down as far as possible" to "argue all you want, but do not insult the person you are arguing with". This is what I believe, this is what I am trying to achieve here at QCDN. I deeply believe that this approach is right and just, and that those who are unwilling or unable to follow it are not welcome at QCDN.

I also see that my "soft spot" isn't getting things done. Repeatedly warning people of violations has next to no effect at all. While this is sad, I have come to accept that today and will act accordingly. Those who are unable to follow the existing rules in how to interact with other QCDN members decently will get their access to QCDN revoked. End of story on that chapter.

Sadly, the 'core group of posters' (aka people with post counts and long-standing discussions with mods and admins) are waved away by the admin unless they're being used to help the mod/admin team make their decisions and do the police work for them.

Well, what's the surprise in that?
If you are not with me, you are against me. It worked for Dubya, it will work here. However, show me one case of me not taking a suggestion into consideration. Show me one case in which I didn't engage in a discussion with someone who has approached me by PM. Show me one case in which a publically stated opinion didn't get a reply from me.

I can certainly be blamed for many things, but in all honesty, ignoring what people have to say is not one of them. Of course the outcome of those who argued to keep the FB was not satisfactory to them, but that doesn't mean that I didn't consider retaining the FB and moderating it more strictly. It was considered, and then a different decision was made based on my very own core belief. I decided, and yes, you can call me out on that, but not on not considering other opinions in the process.

More recently I asked for opinions, and if you look at the thread I made, you will see that very few were given.

I am reachable almost 24/7 by PM, email, skype. Very few users took issues up with me personally. Mokk did as I recall, a couple others did in less lengthy conversations.

I am not opposed to controversy, I am not opposed to discussions, I am opposed to making insults and general rudeness an integral part of those.

I should've included that I don't remember Sculli ever excersizing this rule either.

Good point. You don't remember it, because no one previously made any issue out of it. I would go as far as saying that the decision to have me ask people to remove quotes of people who didn't want to be in one's sig made sense to those who were asked to remove them. It doesn't happen often, it happened perhaps a couple dozen times in two years, so that's like once a month. No one had any issue with it, most responses were along the lines of "sure, np", and the issue was done and over with.

However, this time around people decided to make this huge drama of it, OMG moderation, censorship, where are our freedoms, etc etc. You have no freedoms here at QCDN, or any other privately owned Internet forum. Those who own the forum rule it, and they tend to do so in a benevolent way. Once a sufficiently large number of users is reached, there are bound to be those who are in disagreement and feel that they have the right to do as they please. On most forums those users are dealt with quickly by banning their entire IP range. I was always much more reasonable, giving people warnings, taking their word for sticking to the plan, etc etc. I did that because I felt that those who were out of line still valued the ability to participate here if given the chance and if giving their word that they would do better.

Clearly that doesn't work, and I will adjust the corrective action process to be closer in line with other online forums of comparative size where constant problem users are shown the way out.

I DID THIS ALREADY. Sculli hasn't changed or added it though. I presumed that an "I disagree" button could revoke into less flaming and more of "get to the point" arguing.

I did actually consider this, but there was no good way to implement it at the time. However, currently vBulletin 3.6 is in beta, and as soon as it will be released you will get what you asked for. Perhaps I should have responded to you personally that this feature will become available shortly, but I didn't expect to still see you around.

See this post http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1138579&postcount=9 on how it will work, under the headline "Give Reputation Using AJAX". The new reputation system will have room to leave a comment, and while it is not exactly a "I disagree" button, it is as close to one as it will get without me finding someone to change the "Thanks" button code around to include a "I disagree" button. If you have someone who can make those code changes, do send them my way.

To put it bluntly this is what people want to read, or to be more thorough this is the type of things people want to read. Disagreements, contraversy, arguement, insult and rebuttal, etc.

All of the above, less the insults, are possible at QCDN under the current rules. Insults are not mandatory to arguments. Those who are unable to argue without to insult will have to find a different place to do it.

 

[CubsWoo]

I also see that my "soft spot" isn't getting things done. Repeatedly warning people of violations has next to no effect at all. While this is sad, I have come to accept that today and will act accordingly. Those who are unable to follow the existing rules in how to interact with other QCDN members decently will get their access to QCDN revoked. End of story on that chapter.

THANK GOD. But I'll believe this when I see it.

Well, what's the surprise in that?
If you are not with me, you are against me. It worked for Dubya, it will work here. However, show me one case of me not taking a suggestion into consideration. Show me one case in which I didn't engage in a discussion with someone who has approached me by PM. Show me one case in which a publically stated opinion didn't get a reply from me.

I can certainly be blamed for many things, but in all honesty, ignoring what people have to say is not one of them. Of course the outcome of those who argued to keep the FB was not satisfactory to them, but that doesn't mean that I didn't consider retaining the FB and moderating it more strictly. It was considered, and then a different decision was made based on my very own core belief. I decided, and yes, you can call me out on that, but not on not considering other opinions in the process.

More recently I asked for opinions, and if you look at the thread I made, you will see that very few were given.

I am reachable almost 24/7 by PM, email, skype. Very few users took issues up with me personally. Mokk did as I recall, a couple others did in less lengthy conversations.

I am not opposed to controversy, I am not opposed to discussions, I am opposed to making insults and general rudeness an integral part of those.

Are you forgetting back in my Requiem thread where you basically said that having the opinion that the FB should come back was pointless and we shouldn't bring that up anymore? I haven't tried to have any sort of dialogue with you since then because I find the changes you made to be unacceptable and what you have put up as a vision of this board is a direct contrast to that. Not to mention the way you seem to paint old-guard Flameboard posters in an increasingly negative light, as though we were all F-bombs and PC+1 and nothing else. I've had ideas on how to improve the board. Ideas that have worked well on other sites. However, at the same time, I've felt slapped in the face and disrespected ever since these changes were made. What incentive do I have to help you (and by proxy, this board) out when the board stopped doing me favors?

Make me feel like a comment won't fall on deaf ears and you'll get something to listen to.

Good point. You don't remember it, because no one previously made any issue out of it. I would go as far as saying that the decision to have me ask people to remove quotes of people who didn't want to be in one's sig made sense to those who were asked to remove them. It doesn't happen often, it happened perhaps a couple dozen times in two years, so that's like once a month. No one had any issue with it, most responses were along the lines of "sure, np", and the issue was done and over with.

A lot of other rules get broken less frequently but are still up there. If you were dealing with it on a regular basis, why not add it? It would have taken, at most, 30 seconds to edit a provision for that in. Instead, we get raised eyebrows and concerned members because it has happened in shadow. It shouldn't take someone being upset about breaking a rule that they themselves may not have known about (as per not being public about the sig changes before) and bringing it to GD to make the rule known to all. Not to mention that in multiple other 'popular' sites that this isn't always such a hard and fast rule. Especially if the quote posted is unedited and unchanged.

However, this time around people decided to make this huge drama of it, OMG moderation, censorship, where are our freedoms, etc etc. You have no freedoms here at QCDN, or any other privately owned Internet forum. Those who own the forum rule it, and they tend to do so in a benevolent way. Once a sufficiently large number of users is reached, there are bound to be those who are in disagreement and feel that they have the right to do as they please. On most forums those users are dealt with quickly by banning their entire IP range. I was always much more reasonable, giving people warnings, taking their word for sticking to the plan, etc etc. I did that because I felt that those who were out of line still valued the ability to participate here if given the chance and if giving their word that they would do better.

I've said before that I felt you came about these changes in a very naive way and this is just cementing that feeling in my mind.

Clearly that doesn't work, and I will adjust the corrective action process to be closer in line with other online forums of comparative size where constant problem users are shown the way out.

YES. DO THIS. THIS IS THE BEST THING YOU CAN DO. If you weren't worried about how people would react by the FB's removal, why the hell didn't you start doing this months ago?

I did actually consider this, but there was no good way to implement it at the time. However, currently vBulletin 3.6 is in beta, and as soon as it will be released you will get what you asked for. Perhaps I should have responded to you personally that this feature will become available shortly, but I didn't expect to still see you around.

See this post http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1138579&postcount=9 on how it will work, under the headline "Give Reputation Using AJAX". The new reputation system will have room to leave a comment, and while it is not exactly a "I disagree" button, it is as close to one as it will get without me finding someone to change the "Thanks" button code around to include a "I disagree" button. If you have someone who can make those code changes, do send them my way.

I'm not sure if 'find someone to code this for me' is really an acceptable answer. The better answer is to remove the Good Times board and replace it with a "Post here and spam Thanks" board because that's all that forum is anyway.

 

[Sculli]

For everyone's info, Eulore just got perma-banned from QCDN for editing many of his posts, completely removing the original post, and replacing it with the quote I asked him to remove from his sig. I will go through and clean those threads up shortly.

 

[Trippyhippy]

Nah. I will say that there were people who disliked the FB, as there were people who embraced the FB. I say admit that I did create a thread asking about a QCDN without a FB. However, the decision to remove the FB was mine alone, and I would have done it even if there were zero supporters for it. My attitude on how people ought to interact with each other has changed from an original "bring everyone around you down as far as possible" to "argue all you want, but do not insult the person you are arguing with". This is what I believe, this is what I am trying to achieve here at QCDN. I deeply believe that this approach is right and just, and that those who are unwilling or unable to follow it are not welcome at QCDN.

I would venture to guess that you are the only one trying to achieve anything here. I know I'm not. I come here because I know almost everyone in one way or the other. It gives me something to do at work.

I also see that my "soft spot" isn't getting things done. Repeatedly warning people of violations has next to no effect at all. While this is sad, I have come to accept that today and will act accordingly. Those who are unable to follow the existing rules in how to interact with other QCDN members decently will get their access to QCDN revoked. End of story on that chapter.

Good to know.

Well, what's the surprise in that?
If you are not with me, you are against me. It worked for Dubya, it will work here. However, show me one case of me not taking a suggestion into consideration. Show me one case in which I didn't engage in a discussion with someone who has approached me by PM. Show me one case in which a publically stated opinion didn't get a reply from me.

It worked for Dubya? I was unaware anything he did "worked" unless he broke the rules to do it. Bad example. Oh yeah, and there are grey areas. For example I am for you in some aspects and againstyou in others. This one in particular.

More recently I asked for opinions, and if you look at the thread I made, you will see that very few were given.

Sticky ftw

I am not opposed to controversy, I am not opposed to discussions, I am opposed to making insults and general rudeness an integral part of those.

On this, I understand and completely agree with you. Where our opinions differ is that quoting someone is not rude, nor should it be against any rules.

Good point. You don't remember it, because no one previously made any issue out of it. I would go as far as saying that the decision to have me ask people to remove quotes of people who didn't want to be in one's sig made sense to those who were asked to remove them. It doesn't happen often, it happened perhaps a couple dozen times in two years, so that's like once a month. No one had any issue with it, most responses were along the lines of "sure, np", and the issue was done and over with.

Just because they didn't have a problem with it doesn't make it right. I remember one time after the animated gifs in sigs were declared unacceptable, you asked me to remove a :wizard: from my sig and I did without question. Noone asked about it, noone reported me (as far as I know). It's not an animated gif, but I still saw where you where coming from. On this, I can't understand the request, therefore the reprimand seems unjust. There is no reason to remove it other than 1 user wanting it gone. It doesn't eat up bandwidth. It doesn't break any (displayed) rule. Shaidalyn was just embarassed that it came out of her mouth.

However, this time around people decided to make this huge drama of it, OMG moderation, censorship, where are our freedoms, etc etc.

The big deal about it is not having a valid reason aside from "this person asked me to", which is hardly valid. That's it to me anyways.

 

[Rappa]

On this, I understand and completely agree with you. Where our opinions differ is that quoting someone is not rude, nor should it be against any rules.

Quoting someone: Fine
Quoting someone who asked you not to quote them: Not so fine

Sometimes people say something in a spirited moment without necessarily thinking it through. Sometimes people say something with complete and utter conviction and they don't care if you quote them. Sometimes people say something and then look back at it and go "maybe I shouldn't have said that". At the end of the day, while someone may say something somewhere that you may find witty or stupid and you wanna quote it, you can. But if the person comes to you and asks you to take it off your sig, you should respect their wishes and just remove it. If not, you're just being a prick. I totally support the idea of being able to have something you said or something said about you removed from another person's sig if you choose to do so.

 

[Solitia]

I believe that this was started because there is a core group of people who have made it their lives main purpose to find every single thing that they could possibly call QCDN out on. The reason I think that is that none of the couple dozen people who have asked someone else to remove their quote from the sig have raised such drama about it. Am I right? No idea, you decide.

A handful of people, at best.

You said there weren't enough people that cared? I think the recent vociferous outcry of people show that there are LOTS of people who have cared, lots of people who really don't like how QCDN has gone lately. And believe it or not, most of us don't want to bring QCDN down, we just didn't want it to become what it now is.

I'll bold it so that people can see. There was nothing wrong with the QCDN of a few months ago. NOTHING.

You had so much going for you, Sculli. You had a large part of this server's community going to this board, and just this board, for server goings-on, entertainment, chatting with their friends, etc. Now there's so much dissent that we have a new thread on it coming up practically every day or two. Why? Was it money? Or was it "trying to make a better board"? You had a good board already. My opinion is that you reached for the sky and got burned.

You can't even accuse this as coming from a time-honored Sculli-flamer (I'm not), a Flameboard trouble-maker (I'm not), a QCNN lyncher (I admit to enjoying QCNN because it reminds me of the old QCDN, but certainly I haven't been part of the "ZOMG SCULLI IS SATAN LET'S KILL HIM!" crowd), or a general rabble-rouser. I am a normal user that's finally calling bullshit.

If you want to believe that this is a VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY, go for it. But you can't deny that there's been loud outcry of late, and it's not just from a tiny group of disaffecteds. There is something very wrong with this board. If your goal is to make this like Gamefaqs, go for it. But at least have the honesty to say up-front what's going on, not try to spin this in terms of "quality control" and subjective crapola like that.

This is you, making judgement calls. And I suggest to everyone who feels like I do, that there is something wrong with this series of judgement calls, to find their forum entertainment elsewhere.

Which is really too bad.... it was so much more convenient to only have to go one place for all of my Quetzalcoatlian forum goodness. :nono:

 

[CubsWoo]

People should have the personal responsibility to temper themselves and not say/do things that can come back to haunt them.

But then again, people having a lack of personal responsibility is why the board is what is is now. It's much easier to run to the admins about getting your feelings hurt instead of taking their lumps and understanding that what you say and do can have negative consequences.

 

[Rappa]

If you allow that, then it'd be really easy to just abuse it. 3 minutes in Photoshop and I have an in-game screenshot of anyone I want to saying whatever I want them to say. Or if I'm lazy I can just make something up and just say you said it. How can you prove that you didn't? Can take quotes out of context, etc. This is the kind of stupid crap you're opening the boards up to. This really isn't a very difficult rule to follow.

 

[CubsWoo]

It's something the board's 'been open to' for about three years now and it wasn't a problem until today. If you want to make fun of someone on an Internet forum there are a million more productive ways than taking someone's quote out of context/photoshopping it (which, by the way, means a ton more people need to get their sigs deleted for stupid one-line in game quotes.)

 

[Sirelrohir]

This is my last QCDN post because obviously the staff here does not wish to make the forum any better than blah blah blah

While on read-only, she can PM sculli on how to get off-read only and participate again. Even if she doesn't do that, can still ask that people stop quoting her. The extent of her effect is to stop people from quoting something she said, all-in-all, a very very minor effect on QCDN.

Actually, it was, especially for someone who has made much drama over never ever posting at QCDN anymore. What ever happened to that, hm?

She has flat out said she isnt posting on this site anymore, so why is she making so much drama about something she said in a public domain where everyone could see? This is what she believes. Its not like she PM'd someone in confidence. A number of people think its funny/dumb/idiotic, w/e. But she said it. Does that mean she's flaming herself? Did she give a reason as to why she didnt want the quote up?

I still contend you are making this site a safe haven for people to say idiotic things with no reprucussions. You dont want people namecalling. Fine, no one was namecalling. No one is even harassing her. But now you want to try to cover up other peoples mistakes (dont know what else to call it as clearly she meant what she said) and that does not make sense.

 

[Blazeoffury]

Rappa, in the words of the great black man, Ludacris...
Please stay off the T-I-P of my diock!

I heard Ludacris on MTV saying he wants this post deleted for his name being used in it.

Now... Back on Topic...

He said the EXACT thing that was said by someone else. Was it in anyway what so ever harassing? No. Do I think any less of him because he quoted something he thought was funny? No. Did this break any of the previously written rules? No. Was this just a powerhappy fix? Maybe. Was there any reason for it to be removed? No.

It's not against the standards. There was no rule saying if someone disagreed with your sig it had to be removed. That's like having someones post deleted because you don't agree that Chocolate cream filled donuts are better then jelly donuts. Is there an actual point in deleting that from his sig? No. If a site is going to run and operate in the "heavenly view" that Sculli has of it, then it needs to be consistent on a lot of things. Rules are made in the beginning. You cannot add a rule without telling anyone. That's like saying all the sudden that being offsides in a football game isn't wrong anymore, but only telling one team.

 

[CubsWoo]

Just so we're on the same page - if the quote in question does not have a name attached to it, does that make it OK for signatures?

 

[Davio]

lol i dont know Windaria on the forums, but shes a nice gal ingame :\