Now that is funny I don't care who you are.Cleveland Buck wrote: Welcome to the freehuddle Mr. Natali.
So I might as well get it over with and start charging people to post, right?FunFun7 wrote: Long time reader and first time poster. If you remember back to when JJ first started, this site looks similar. It took JJ a while to be where they are today. This site is only speeding up the process to be there faster.
I made a mistake in typing you were busted for being just what you are.queencitybuckeye wrote:Perhaps if were written in correct English...newarkcatholicfan wrote: Wasn't complianing just posting the truth big difference that should not be so hard for some to get.
BTW, not sure of the purpose of the topic. Was someone banned who wasn't an obvious closet case?
Whatever you do, offer a better mag than ESPN the Magazine. How about Penthouse or Hustler?justincredible wrote:So I might as well get it over with and start charging people to post, right?FunFun7 wrote: Long time reader and first time poster. If you remember back to when JJ first started, this site looks similar. It took JJ a while to be where they are today. This site is only speeding up the process to be there faster.
We are able to openly criticize this website without being banned, correct?justincredible wrote:So I might as well get it over with and start charging people to post, right?FunFun7 wrote: Long time reader and first time poster. If you remember back to when JJ first started, this site looks similar. It took JJ a while to be where they are today. This site is only speeding up the process to be there faster.
I'd say that's fairly obvious, no?FunFun7 wrote:We are able to openly criticize this website without being banned, correct?justincredible wrote:So I might as well get it over with and start charging people to post, right?FunFun7 wrote: Long time reader and first time poster. If you remember back to when JJ first started, this site looks similar. It took JJ a while to be where they are today. This site is only speeding up the process to be there faster.
Hard to tell. Your 4 rules are simple to read, but after being a neutral observer until now, it doesn't seem to be as clear cut.justincredible wrote:I'd say that's fairly obvious, no?FunFun7 wrote:We are able to openly criticize this website without being banned, correct?justincredible wrote:So I might as well get it over with and start charging people to post, right?FunFun7 wrote: Long time reader and first time poster. If you remember back to when JJ first started, this site looks similar. It took JJ a while to be where they are today. This site is only speeding up the process to be there faster.
Then why did you join? With the new rules there have been two people banned (a few alter egos as well of one of the two). There were banned without my approval first which was partially my fault for not setting protocol explicitly before hand. That has since been discussed with my moderators who are now on a three strike policy. The first time the break protocol they are warned. The second time they lose mod powers for a week. The third time they lose their mod powers indefinitely. Those two people were also only banned for one week though I've got people giving me heat for that saying they should be banned permanently.FunFun7 wrote: Hard to tell. Your 4 rules are simple to read, but after being a neutral observer until now, it doesn't seem to be as clear cut.
QFT!wes_mantooth wrote:
Whatever you do, offer a better mag than ESPN the Magazine. How about Penthouse or Hustler?
No, it's not hard to tell. They are clear about what is and isn't against the rules on this site. On JJ, they weren't. It was all subjective and to moderator discretion. This site says what they do and does what they say.FunFun7 wrote:Hard to tell. Your 4 rules are simple to read, but after being a neutral observer until now, it doesn't seem to be as clear cut.justincredible wrote:I'd say that's fairly obvious, no?FunFun7 wrote:We are able to openly criticize this website without being banned, correct?justincredible wrote:So I might as well get it over with and start charging people to post, right?FunFun7 wrote: Long time reader and first time poster. If you remember back to when JJ first started, this site looks similar. It took JJ a while to be where they are today. This site is only speeding up the process to be there faster.
That would clean things up! Not a bad idea. What's the down side of that decision?justincredible wrote:So I might as well get it over with and start charging people to post, right?FunFun7 wrote: Long time reader and first time poster. If you remember back to when JJ first started, this site looks similar. It took JJ a while to be where they are today. This site is only speeding up the process to be there faster.