Cleveland Buck wrote: Welcome to the freehuddle Mr. Natali.

Now that is funny I don't care who you are.

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.

So I might as well get it over with and start charging people to post, right?

Can you make sure you offer us a one time membership fee then come back later and charge us again?

queencitybuckeye wrote:

newarkcatholicfan wrote: Wasn't complianing just posting the truth big difference that should not be so hard for some to get.

Perhaps if were written in correct English...

BTW, not sure of the purpose of the topic. Was someone banned who wasn't an obvious closet case?

I made a mistake in typing you were busted for being just what you are.

justincredible wrote:

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.

So I might as well get it over with and start charging people to post, right?

Whatever you do, offer a better mag than ESPN the Magazine. How about Penthouse or Hustler?

justincredible wrote:

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.

So I might as well get it over with and start charging people to post, right?

We are able to openly criticize this website without being banned, correct?

FunFun7 wrote:

justincredible wrote:

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.

So I might as well get it over with and start charging people to post, right?

We are able to openly criticize this website without being banned, correct?

I'd say that's fairly obvious, no?

justincredible wrote:

FunFun7 wrote:

justincredible wrote:

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.

So I might as well get it over with and start charging people to post, right?

We are able to openly criticize this website without being banned, correct?

I'd say that's fairly obvious, no?

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.

Oh how so?

Soceity? WeAreNC? Which one are you?

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.

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.

wes_mantooth wrote:

Whatever you do, offer a better mag than ESPN the Magazine. How about Penthouse or Hustler?

QFT!

FunFun7 wrote:

justincredible wrote:

FunFun7 wrote:

justincredible wrote:

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.

So I might as well get it over with and start charging people to post, right?

We are able to openly criticize this website without being banned, correct?

I'd say that's fairly obvious, no?

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.

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.

justincredible wrote:

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.

So I might as well get it over with and start charging people to post, right?

That would clean things up! Not a bad idea. What's the down side of that decision?

We don't really want rules, at least not for us. It's like the parent who wants the school to crack down on behavior problems, drug issues, drinking issues and all the rest, but if their little darling gets caught, it's an entirely different situation. I think it's been pretty well documented that societies with no rules don't do very well over the long haul. If you don't have rules, that's one issue, but if you have them and they are selectively enforced, that is, in my view, as bad as not having any rules. I think a reasonable list of basic rules isn't a bad idea for a society, and it isn't bad for an internet site either. I believe the term we are looking for here is selective freedom.