yeah definitely weak. but ts also gets a hard-on for giving out infractions, so it's not surprising.

Also, I'll judge how this place is doing during high school football season. Can't really tell based on the season we are in.

GoChiefs;1220705 wrote:No, but using a joke that you were told to stop using or you would be infracted is infraction worthy.



The thing is the rule is do not CONTINUALLY harass a member. Making a post or two isn't breaking rule #2.

Who determines what is continued harrassment?

Looks like a pussy infraction to me. Sounds like LJ's little feelings have been getting hurt. If not, then why infract? How about asking LJ or any other poster who is allegedly being "harassed" if it actually offends them? If they say no, then there is no point in infracted anyone.

If that post is infractable, then 1_beast and numerous wayne county mafia members should have been infracted a long time ago for mocking several posters on the GOAT threads (note:i don't think they should be infracted, because I am not a pussy and don't get my feelings hurt over what anonymous people say on the internets). Also, anyone who jokingly posts about the type of women that Wes hooks up with should be infracted too. We have gone from one extreme (everyone going for the kill) to another extreme (worrying about the pussy QQers getting their feelings hurt).

I think the main reason for the change in rules was to prevent thread derailing. As I have said before, the simplest way to prevent that is thread banning. Warn the poster once, and if he doesn't obey, ban him from the thread. I think that is a pretty simple solution as oppose to TS, cry4fail, and wildcats getting off by providing infractions. The funniest part is they mock the posters after they provide warnings/infractions.

sleeper;1220588 wrote:I got an infraction for writing this:



Really? LOL

Go Find Yourself.

Couldn't you post a fun fact about your niece and revive this thread Tigerfan?

skank;1220735 wrote:Couldn't you post a fun fact about your niece and revive this thread Tigerfan?

Itd be nowhere near as fun as starting a thread about the temperature or a "what do you have" thread or lets not forget the ever so fun thread about "least favorite place to drive".

Tigerfan00;1220723 wrote:Who determines what is continued harrassment?

Ultimately the person who owns the site.

Tigerfan00;1220743 wrote:Itd be nowhere near as fun as starting a thread about the temperature or a "what do you have" thread or lets not forget the ever so fun thread about "least favorite place to drive".

Yes, because the constant threads bitching about mods, rules, and reasons for received infractions are far more intriguing.

Tigerfan00;1220723 wrote:Who determines what is continued harrassment?

Obviously that responsibility falls upon the moderators.

Most mods, me included don't have a problem with this infraction simply because he was warned beforehand to stop posting about LJ or infractions will be given. He chose not to do so. He was infracted just like he was warned. That's a moderators fault how?

GoChiefs;1220749 wrote:Obviously that responsibility falls upon the moderators.

Most mods, me included don't have a problem with this infraction simply because he was warned beforehand to stop posting about LJ or infractions will be given. He chose not to do so. He was infracted just like he was warned. That's a moderators fault how?

Then each and every person who even mentions LJ in a way that may offend him needs to be warned right away. This should be helpful to everyone to not hurt the little guys feelz. Its getting really bad that the site has come to this. The wussification of America.

None of it offends me. None of it hurts my feelings. :laugh: at those who think an internet forum affects my life in any tangible way

Tigerfan00;1220751 wrote:Then each and every person who even mentions LJ in a way that may offend him needs to be warned right away. This should be helpful to everyone to not hurt the little guys feelz. Its getting really bad that the site has come to this. The wussification of America.

Perhaps you should, once again, see the part in the rule that talks about CONTINUED harassment.

sleeper;1220608 wrote:Might as well be permabanned. I have no interest in posting and/or reading "What did you have for lunch today" and "Look what I bought" threads; which are pretty much the only allowable threads on this forum. Judging by declining revenue and post count, this place is dying.

Well, yeah, it's now zero. But before ads just went away it wasn't declining. It was actually on the upswing. But if they don't come back you'll get your wish and the site gets shut down.

Tigerfan00;1220751 wrote:Then each and every person who even mentions LJ in a way that may offend him needs to be warned right away. This should be helpful to everyone to not hurt the little guys feelz. Its getting really bad that the site has come to this. The wussification of America.

Is this "hurt feelings" nonsense an intentional or unintentional strawman? Because it has absolutely nothing to do with the point of the rule.

LJ;1220756 wrote:None of it offends me. None of it hurts my feelings. :laugh: at those who think an internet forum affects my life in any tangible way

If it doesn't hurt your feelings, you could easily tell Justin and all mods not to infract anyone for busting your balls. That's probably too much for a dramatic know it all douche bag like yourself to do though.

queencitybuckeye;1220759 wrote:Is this "hurt feelings" nonsense an intentional or unintentional strawman? Because it has absolutely nothing to do with the point of the rule.

+1

like_that;1220760 wrote:If it doesn't hurt your feelings, you could easily tell Justin and all mods not to infract anyone for busting your balls. That's probably too much for a dramatic know it all douche bag like yourself to do though.

It's because it derails threads and adds nothing, it falls right in line with the "cc is a pedo" stuff, and he has never complained to us about it. Why is that so hard to understand?

LJ;1220764 wrote:Why is that so hard to understand?

Nothing hard to understand. This is just the daily bitch about the site thread.

LJ;1220764 wrote:It's because it derails threads and adds nothing, it falls right in line with the "cc is a pedo" stuff, and he has never complained to us about it. Why is that so hard to understand?

As i said before, you can easily ban thread the person. Provide one warning, if he/she doesn't obey, then ban thread. Why is that so hard to understand?

like_that;1220767 wrote:As i said before, you can easily ban thread the person. Provide one warning, if he/she doesn't obey, then ban thread. Why is that so hard to understand?

It's not, but it's not your decision is it?

like_that;1220767 wrote:As i said before, you can easily ban thread the person. Provide one warning, if he/she doesn't obey, then ban thread. Why is that so hard to understand?

Because the thread ban option hasn't been perfected through the software. A member will get thread banned, but at times, they are still able to post in the thread.

Also, the "know it all" comments directed toward you never derail a thread at all. Sleeper (or someone else) gets his shot in, and the thread moves on. Same with the cc pedorunner comments. CC hardly even acknowledges those comments. As I said before, if those type of posts get infractions, then the posts making fun of the type of women Wes bangs should be infracted as well.

Also, might as well start infracting people for mocking Pick6 for making Troy Smith out to be the greatest NFL QB of all time.

like_that;1220772 wrote:Also, the "know it all" comments directed toward you never derail a thread at all. Sleeper (or someone else) gets his shot in, and the thread moves on. Same with the cc pedorunner comments. CC hardly even acknowledges those comments. As I said before, if those type of posts get infractions, then the posts making fun of the type of women Wes bangs should be infracted as well.

Also, might as well start infracting people for mocking Pick6 for making Troy Smith out to be the greatest NFL QB of all time.

Again, since when has it been your decision?

LJ;1220773 wrote:Again, since when has it been your decision?

Yeah, If I had nothing, I would respond with a douche response too that had nothing to do with what I said.

Where did I say it was my decision?

like_that;1220776 wrote:Yeah, If I had nothing, I would respond with a douche response too that had nothing to do with what I said.

Where did I say it was my decision?

What don't I have? The reasoning is that it has been determined to be trolling and derails threads, exactly what Justin is trying to get rid of. We get it, you disagree, but honestly, no one cares about your opinion on it. If they did, they would be responding "oh good idea!".