Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Site Ideas Forum

Site Ideas Forum

  1. Standard member Red Night
    RHP Prophet
    19 May '09 03:59
    Should the TOS be amended to refelct the new reality that the rules do not apply to members of certain clans and groups?
  2. 19 May '09 08:49
    Originally posted by Red Night
    Should the TOS be amended to refelct the new reality that the rules do not apply to members of certain clans and groups?
    Yes, perhaps it could also include grounds for instant dismissal for smug, self-righteous trolls.
  3. Standard member Red Night
    RHP Prophet
    19 May '09 15:05
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Yes, perhaps it could also include grounds for instant dismissal for smug, self-righteous trolls.
    That rule wouldn't hurt you much.

    You could just use your PFC get out of jail free card and you'ld be out of self-righteous troll jail before you could say rumpledarvlay.
  4. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    19 May '09 15:44
    Originally posted by Red Night
    That rule wouldn't hurt you much.

    You could just use your PFC get out of jail free card and you'ld be out of self-righteous troll jail before you could say rumpledarvlay.
    What a crybaby.

    I suggest the TOS be amended so that all decisions by Russ must be approved, in advance, by Red Night. That is, after all, the only thing that would keep him and the TSM happy.
  5. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    19 May '09 19:15 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Yes, perhaps it could also include grounds for instant dismissal for smug, self-righteous trolls.
    There is nothing inherently wrong with being smug, or self-righteous as long as you are in the right.

    If you want people to not be smug/self-righteous, then be correct yourself and the other person will not be able to fall into that position.
  6. Standard member Phlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    19 May '09 20:04
    Originally posted by uzless
    There is nothing inherently wrong with being smug, or self-righteous as long as you are in the right.

    If you want people to not be smug/self-righteous, then be correct yourself and the other person will not be able to fall into that position.
    Are you new here?

    P-
  7. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    19 May '09 22:10
    With that farce of re-instating darvy directly opposite of the TOS, I have declared an opposite day for uzless. All posts will be well-wishes, supportive, and helpful comments.

    I enjoy your posts phlabibit. Your bring light and levity. If you were a sundae I would lick you.
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    19 May '09 22:23 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by uzless
    With that farce of re-instating darvy directly opposite of the TOS, I have declared an opposite day for uzless. All posts will be well-wishes, supportive, and helpful comments.

    I enjoy your posts phlabibit. Your bring light and levity. If you were a sundae I would lick you.
    Could you please direct me to the section of the TOS which states that the Site Admins cannot reinstate someone they banned if they so desire?

    Thank you.
  9. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    19 May '09 22:27
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Could you please direct me to the section of the TOS which states that the Site Admins cannot reinstate someone they banned if they so desire?

    Thank you.
    Only a fool in here would think he's got anythin' to prove
  10. Standard member Raven69
    Different
    19 May '09 22:29
    Originally posted by uzless
    There is nothing inherently wrong with being smug, or self-righteous as long as you are in the right.

    If you want people to not be smug/self-righteous, then be correct yourself and the other person will not be able to fall into that position.
    ...and the "right" is whatever you believe in.
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    19 May '09 23:00
    Originally posted by uzless
    Only a fool in here would think he's got anythin' to prove
    A fool could (and did) claim that reinstating Darvlay was "directly opposite of the TOS".
  12. Subscriber Very Rusty
    Treat Everyone Equal
    20 May '09 01:07 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by Red Night
    Should the TOS be amended to refelct the new reality that the rules do not apply to members of certain clans and groups?
    That is a good question.

    I think that certain Non-Subs (not all) should be limited to so many posts a day, so we don't have to put up with so much of their drivel. Perhaps 10 like is done with the PM's would be a perfect number?

    We the paying subs would say who these Non-Subs would be.
  13. Standard member Raven69
    Different
    20 May '09 02:36
    Originally posted by Very Rusty
    We the paying subs would say who these Non-Subs would be.
    Well well, looks who's getting all elitist...
  14. Subscriber Very Rusty
    Treat Everyone Equal
    20 May '09 03:20 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Raven69
    Well well, looks who's getting all elitist...
    Perhaps while were at it, get rid of anyone with a 69 at the end or beginning of their name as it is a known sexual postition, and this is a 13+ Site! Doesn't matter if they are actually 69 either!

    Well not them actually, just the number 69.
  15. Standard member Red Night
    RHP Prophet
    20 May '09 05:43 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Very Rusty
    That is a good question.

    I think that certain Non-Subs (not all) should be limited to so many posts a day, so we don't have to put up with so much of their drivel. Perhaps 10 like is done with the PM's would be a perfect number?

    We the paying subs would say who these Non-Subs would be.
    While I agree that it would be nice to limit certain people's posting ability for all of our sanity, I believe in free speech.

    Every moron, from defrauder to crowley, has the same right to spout their idiotic opinions as every other user.