+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Rules & Requests (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Rules (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Section1 - 2.4 needs an update (/showthread.php?tid=133571)
RE: Section1 - 2.4 needs an update - Tabris - 12-04-2015
I could be wrong remember. *shrug* I wasn't a mod at the time so don't take my word for it.
RE: Section1 - 2.4 needs an update - Kauket - 12-04-2015
(12-04-2015, 07:51 PM)Tabris Wrote: I believe that particular rule was created because SOME FOLKS were posting a never-ending parade of pictures/gifs related to it and wouldn't stop.
Yeah, and because we have to ban EVERY trending thing on the internet. Alright. It happens, then it'll die down. If they're spamming, simply 'remove' it - especially if it's irrelevant.
RE: Section1 - 2.4 needs an update - nOmnomnOm - 12-04-2015
(12-04-2015, 07:54 PM)Nyx Wrote:(12-04-2015, 07:51 PM)Tabris Wrote: I believe that particular rule was created because SOME FOLKS were posting a never-ending parade of pictures/gifs related to it and wouldn't stop.
Yeah, and because we have to ban EVERY trending thing on the internet. Alright. It happens, then it'll die down. If they're spamming, simply 'remove' it - especially if it's irrelevant.
thats basically what 2.4 is and my argument.
so you agree.
RE: Section1 - 2.4 needs an update - Kauket - 12-04-2015
(12-04-2015, 07:57 PM)nOmnomnOm Wrote: thats basically what 2.4 is and my argument.That's your argument for flood.
If it's an appropriate reaction, it's fine. If it's out of context, then why is it even there?
RE: Section1 - 2.4 needs an update - nOmnomnOm - 12-04-2015
(12-04-2015, 07:58 PM)Nyx Wrote:(12-04-2015, 07:57 PM)nOmnomnOm Wrote: thats basically what 2.4 is and my argument.That's your argument for flood.
If it's an appropriate reaction, it's fine. If it's out of context, then why is it even there?
thats my argument for not only flood.
has flood been mentioned in the OP?
No.
Do you assume things?
Pretty much.
RE: Section1 - 2.4 needs an update - Kauket - 12-04-2015
(12-04-2015, 07:59 PM)nOmnomnOm Wrote: thats my argument for not only flood.It was what you last mentioned in your previous posts. Either way. Like I said, it's like fitting up a puzzle. So I'm not really bothered anymore.
has flood been mentioned in the OP?
No.
Do you assume things?
Pretty much.
RE: Section1 - 2.4 needs an update - jammi - 12-04-2015
I get that Flood's a place where anything goes, but really this rule shouldn't be targeting a specific type of picture. Something with a broader definition that addressed annoying and disruptive forced memes would be better.
Classic example: two to three people completely suffocating a thread by blanket bombing it with 30 pages of RWBY/cat/tank memes.
Flood lets people spam, sure, but you'd have thought that strays into the realm of malice when the only objective in posting those pictures is burying whatever the existing involved participants wanted to posting about?
Who cares if the odd pony/cat/tank/RWBY macro get posted somewhere on the forum (even outside Flood) to make a point? The only time they're detrimental is when they're posted en-masse to basically DoS attack a thread.