RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
June 7, 2015 at 4:54 pm
We have to consult with our accounting department, to make sure such bets don't pose a fiscal liability to the forum.
Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
|
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
June 7, 2015 at 4:54 pm
We have to consult with our accounting department, to make sure such bets don't pose a fiscal liability to the forum.
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
June 7, 2015 at 4:57 pm
(This post was last modified: June 7, 2015 at 4:58 pm by Pyrrho.)
(June 7, 2015 at 4:47 pm)Stimbo Wrote: You could always read them. There are several rules that could be interpreted in a way that would make it prohibited. I.e., rules 3, 4, & 13. But none of them seem explicit on this point. But all of them come close enough that I would ask before making such a thread. "A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." — David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
June 7, 2015 at 5:01 pm
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
June 7, 2015 at 5:03 pm
In essence the no calling out rule comes to mind. Making a thread aimed at a particular user, or in intent to make other users targets, instead of their ideas is against that rule.
As to bans, it is the staff burden. RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
June 7, 2015 at 5:22 pm
(June 7, 2015 at 4:57 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:(June 7, 2015 at 4:47 pm)Stimbo Wrote: You could always read them. There you go. The fact that we don't have a rule specifically about every possible action tells you why we spend such a lot of time discussing these things before taking action. Though there may not be anything explicitly about the point, let me ask: do you really want to be 'that' guy?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
June 24, 2015 at 1:25 am
Almost reported the "You near them all the nasty sup the question" post, but it was apparently reported. I like that new feature.
"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
June 25, 2015 at 12:46 am
Anvand...you are banned!
"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
June 25, 2015 at 12:50 am
Why you no sell me r0k crushz0r!?
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists. Index of useful threads and discussions Index of my best videos Quickstart guide to the forum RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
June 25, 2015 at 1:42 am
Nuffin left bro!
Jus sum sorterz, z'all
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear. RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
June 30, 2015 at 7:41 am
That was a particularly hard-working spambot earlier. I looked at Today's Posts and thought something had gone wonky with the forum code
If you have any serious concerns, are being harassed, or just need someone to talk to, feel free to contact me via PM |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|