No-harrassment rules only apply to moderators. You cannot say anything about a moderator on these forums; even gentle ribbing. Moderators should have thicker skin but they are constantly given a free pass by the administration who applauds moderators who lay down the law rather than utilize proper enforcement.

justincredible;1418359 wrote:Think what you want but no one whined or bitched to me. Not Fly, not MB. I'm just sick of it.

/JJ'd, I guess.

Updated for corest font.

sleeper;1418388 wrote:blah blah blah blah blah

yup.

Raw Dawgin' it;1418428 wrote:yup.

You'll be next. :thumbup:

sleeper;1418432 wrote:You'll be next. :thumbup:

Also in response to Justin's rule, these "posters" dont act like asshats then they wont get "harassed". Pretty simple to me, not my fault the board doesn't like ppl.

The whole "harrass" thing is blown way out of proportion too. Are people really that butthurt that they get backlash for making stupid comments or acting like a know it all douche? If so, perhaps they grow up and realize the internet is merely giving them feedback on how retarded they sound so they don't make the same mistakes in person. Instead of infractions, I think a simple "Thank you" is in order. :thumbup:

And once again, it's not trolling if its true. Telling ND fans that "so and so recruit" won't pan out because typically 5 star talents that go to ND never win a BCS bowl game or a Heisman(check the last 20 years for evidence). Literally, you could go into every ND thread and post the same thing over and over again because ND fans don't realize they sound absolutely retarded when they say shit like "Oh this is our year, we are going to win a BCS bowl" or "Man, this guy is really talented, he'll be a Heisman candidate in year 2". FALSE. :thumbup:

So to all those ND fans/Duke fans/He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named fans(LJ), you're welcome! :thumbup:

sleeper;1418437 wrote:Literally, you could go into every ND thread and post the same thing over and over again

What do you mean by "you could"? You did.

FatHobbit;1418477 wrote:What do you mean by "you could"? You did.

ND fans do the same thing to Ohio State threads, except they constantly have to mold their argument to circumvent any success that OSU has year in year out. With ND, nothing changes; therefore the logic still dictates they are not any good and they won't win anything.

sleeper;1418435 wrote:The whole "harrass" thing is blown way out of proportion too. Are people really that butthurt that they get backlash for making stupid comments or acting like a know it all douche? If so, perhaps they grow up and realize the internet is merely giving them feedback on how retarded they sound so they don't make the same mistakes in person. Instead of infractions, I think a simple "Thank you" is in order. :thumbup:

Fucking this.

You know how many times I get "harassed" on random threads about mike Sam and will, of the tow truck thing (see tigerfan's post just now), my Kansas bandwagon thing...name it. But I don't give a fuck because who cares? Anyone who complains about harassment on a forum is a straight loser and the admins shouldn't bend over for them.

SportsAndLady;1418492 wrote:Fucking this.

You know how many times I get "harassed" on random threads about mike Sam and will, of the tow truck thing (see tigerfan's post just now), my Kansas bandwagon thing...name it. But I don't give a fuck because who cares? Anyone who complains about harassment on a forum is a straight loser and the admins shouldn't bend over for them.

See LJ, lotz, C4F for examples.

The only way "harrass" should ever be infracted is if its seriously derailing the thread. If it derails the thread entirely, a mod can issue a warning to cut the shit. If the user continues to derail a thread, then a ban is in order. The way it's done now is a joke and seriously reeks of J-J-HUDDLE.

sleeper;1418499 wrote:If it derails the thread entirely, a mod can issue a warning to cut the shit. If the user continues to derail a thread, then a ban is in order.

So you agree if you're warned to cut the shit and continue, that a ban is in order?

FatHobbit;1418509 wrote:So you agree if you're warned to cut the shit and continue, that a ban is in order?

Yes. :thumbup:

FatHobbit;1418509 wrote:So you agree if you're warned to cut the shit and continue, that a ban is in order?

Do you actually believe sleeper (or deydurkie previously) deserves to be basement bant for over 9 months?

Also, I should clarify, I meant thread ban. The whole notion of "banning to the basement" is an absolute joke. Bans should be permanent with no posting rights and should be reserved for situations that violate TOS of the forum(porn is the easiest example).

like_that;1418514 wrote:Do you actually believe sleeper (or deydurkie previously) deserves to be basement bant for over 9 months?

I don't know why they were banned or if they were warned. But I do know that sleeper continuously trolls and/or derails many threads. (Anything Notre Dame or religion. There may be more topics but he definitely kills any thread along those lines.)

FatHobbit;1418520 wrote:I don't know why they were banned or if they were warned. But I do know that sleeper continuously trolls and/or derails many threads. (Anything Notre Dame or religion. There may be more topics but he definitely kills any thread along those lines.)

You call it "killing", I call it "cornering the market of logic and reason and then looking down upon inferior arguments from my ivory tower". :thumbup:

sleeper;1418523 wrote:You call it "killing", I call it "cornering the market of logic and reason and then looking down upon inferior arguments from my ivory tower". :thumbup:

Call it whatever you like, but it's the reason why you are stuck in the basement.

FatHobbit;1418548 wrote:Call it whatever you like, but it's the reason why you are stuck in the basement.

I look at it this way. Say User A makes a post about how gravity is false and that we are being held up rather than down by God and Jesus. I come in and give overwhelming amounts of evidence that highly correlate with gravity being real. User A continues to post his made up theories, just with different opinions and different angles while I continue to post the exact same evidence to every response. Why should I edit a perfectly rational response that's cited with overwhelmingly evidence to his point of view? That's a lot of work for little return and is completely unnecessary to have any deviation from my initial argument which is factual and logical accurate.

Now take the same example, substitute User A talking about Notre Dame football and you'll quickly see my point of view and why its infallibility shouldn't be called into question ever again.

sleeper;1418556 wrote:I look at it this way. Say User A makes a post about how gravity is false and that we are being held up rather than down by God and Jesus. I come in and give overwhelming amounts of evidence that highly correlate with gravity being real. User A continues to post his made up theories, just with different opinions and different angles while I continue to post the exact same evidence to every response. Why should I edit a perfectly rational response that's cited with overwhelmingly evidence to his point of view? That's a lot of work for little return and is completely unnecessary to have any deviation from my initial argument which is factual and logical accurate.

Now take the same example, substitute User A talking about Notre Dame football and you'll quickly see my point of view and why its infallibility shouldn't be called into question ever again.

Call it whatever you like, but it's the reason why you are stuck in the basement.

FatHobbit;1418582 wrote:Call it whatever you like, but it's the reason why you are stuck in the basement.

I'm in the basement because of something entirely different. Nice fail though. :thumbup:

sleeper;1418586 wrote:I'm in the basement because of something entirely different. Nice fail though. :thumbup:

You're not in the basement for beating a dead horse?