Posts: 5813
Threads: 86
Joined: November 19, 2017
Reputation:
59
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
August 26, 2018 at 10:52 pm
(This post was last modified: August 27, 2018 at 12:26 am by vulcanlogician.)
There seems to be a bit of judgement involved in the implementation of the rule. I've seen threads that began as a debate which started elsewhere wherein the OP focused on a particular argument made by a particular person, maybe even quoting them in the OP. I suppose focus on the argument itself rather than the person might have had something to do with these threads not being deleted.
Posts: 9869
Threads: 21
Joined: September 8, 2015
Reputation:
79
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
August 27, 2018 at 12:15 am
*Harrumph* [Looks at AF Bible, Chapter 13 verse 666]. Oops, there is no scripture to cover this, must resort to reason and logic.
If you get to thinking you’re a person of some influence, try ordering somebody else’s dog around.
Posts: 18544
Threads: 145
Joined: March 18, 2015
Reputation:
100
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
August 27, 2018 at 12:27 am
I think it's more about using logic and common sense. If the intent is there to maliciously call out another member then, yeah, it's obviously a rule violation. If the intent is to continue a topic that spun off from another thread, and you mention the person, because well, you want to take the discussion further without disrupting the original thread, then I wouldn't consider that calling out.
The birthday threads aren't calling anyone out because it's not being done with malicious intent.
Creating a thread that baits a certain person into responding, that's calling out as well, I would think. For example, we know certain members on here are never in the majority of many of the more heated topics of conversation, so starting a thread which would cause those particular persons to respond negatively, in my opinion, would be considered calling them out. The reasoning is because you wouldn't be expecting a response from anyone else who would agree with the majority POV that the thread topic would be based on, therefore you are trying to bait those with differing opinions into responding angrily.
That's my understanding of it anyway.
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand.
(November 14, 2018 at 8:57 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Have a good day at work. If we ever meet in a professional setting, let me answer your question now. Yes, I DO want fries with that.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
August 27, 2018 at 12:53 am
The person can always remake the thread in a way that removes focus from forum members, if possible.
Posts: 18544
Threads: 145
Joined: March 18, 2015
Reputation:
100
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
August 27, 2018 at 1:06 am
I suppose they could, but I think the main reason why they start "spin off" threads from existing threads is to continue discussion in a way that doesn't detract from the original thread and in order to do that, sometimes mentioning the person or giving credit to them for the post that got a ball rolling, is, in my opinion, okay to do.
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand.
(November 14, 2018 at 8:57 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Have a good day at work. If we ever meet in a professional setting, let me answer your question now. Yes, I DO want fries with that.
Posts: 28301
Threads: 522
Joined: June 16, 2015
Reputation:
90
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
September 2, 2018 at 10:07 pm
How many people got spammed with jrgregg sex?
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
September 2, 2018 at 10:12 pm
(September 2, 2018 at 10:07 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: How many people got spammed with jrgregg sex?
Just you, I think. 😉
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 28389
Threads: 226
Joined: March 24, 2014
Reputation:
185
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
September 2, 2018 at 10:33 pm
(September 2, 2018 at 10:07 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: How many people got spammed with jrgregg sex?
I was excited when I got that PM and sorely disappointed after reading it. I mean, if you’re gonna spam about sex at least make it entertaining. Damn
(August 21, 2017 at 11:31 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "I'm not a troll"
Religious Views: He gay
0/10
Hammy Wrote:and we also have a sheep on our bed underneath as well
Posts: 30974
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
September 2, 2018 at 10:39 pm
0/10 tbh
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
September 2, 2018 at 11:29 pm
(This post was last modified: September 2, 2018 at 11:33 pm by Minimalist.)
Losty has been swinging the banhammer like a madwoman.
(September 2, 2018 at 10:07 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: How many people got spammed with jrgregg sex?
IF I'm going to read a book like that it had better have a centerfold.
|
