My warning exprires in t-minus 10 minutes.

[Reforged]

I'm confused. So, you regularly break a rule and receive a warning for it. You obviously have no intention on correcting the behavior, yet you continue to only receive warnings?

Well from what I gather if I don't do it often and wait for the warning to expire I'm fine.
All I need to do is stay around 25%.
Think of it as a kind of spa treatment. Except instead of releasing all the tension I'm just releasing pure evil.

[5thHorseman]

lol warning for memes............. were they insulting to the individual, or funny?

[Reforged]

Really living life on the edge!

Well as far as I know I'm fine. I don't do it regularly.
Just every 2-3 months. Thats like four times a year max.
Some people go on holiday more often than that.

---

lol warning for memes............. were they insulting to the individual, or funny?

Both, in my opinion. I'd show them but I think that would count as rule breaking. The one of Vinny is still around I think.

[Annik]

You should send out a PM. I'm curious.

[Reforged]

You should send out a PM. I'm curious.

Done. I understand why I got the warnings. Don't begrudge them at all. Definitely something that should be regulated and limited. I mean if it wasn't where would it end? Yes, four times a year is more than enough.
On the flip side, if anyone feels like mocking me with one feel free.
I love a good laugh and I'd be flattered you chose to use part of your allowance on me.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...
On the flip side, if anyone feels like mocking me with one feel free.
I love a good laugh and I'd be flattered you chose to use part of your allowance on me.

Ha.

Haha.

HahahahaBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

*lightning flash*

[Angrboda]

Meh, people who always color between the lines are boring.

I generally stay within the rules, but, particularly on another forum where the rules are rather lax, occasionally I'll encounter asshattery that demands a response. So, if I'm in good standing otherwise, I let them know exactly what I think of them. PERSONAL ATTACK TO THE RESCUE!!

I can't say I've ever been treated in a fashion on this forum that I've ever felt inclined to do that here. The rules are stricter here, better enforced, and I like the resultant higher standard of behavior that results.


(Speaking of which, it it absurd to anyone else that, even if it's true, the truth does not excuse a personal attack? It has always struck me as absurd that this is the one common area of forums where speaking the truth is actually a bad thing.)

[Cyberman]

Maybe it's true - perhaps we really do need authority to make us behave...

[Shell B]

I'm confused. So, you regularly break a rule and receive a warning for it. You obviously have no intention on correcting the behavior, yet you continue to only receive warnings?

Actually, it is a relatively new trend, given that he was only just starting to break rules without correcting his behavior when I left. The staff, in the past, gave a lot of opportunities for people to stop being fuckheads, despite what some may think.

To be honest, RD, I find this rude. The staff works hard. Why make them work harder? It is seriously a dick move, but don't take that to mean I think you are a dick. I don't mind you personally. I just think you would rethink it if you realized how much of a pain in the ass it is to deal with rule breaking. Make the meme and post it on your facebook like a good adolescent.

[Angrboda]

Maybe it's true - perhaps we really do need authority to make us behave...

I don't know if you were being sarcastic here or not, and alluding to God and what not.

I'm not sure I have a well thought out response here. (Ethics and political philosophy are not areas I specialize in.)

Perhaps it's not that we need authority to behave, but we do need standards, and standards without consequences aren't really standards.

I've spent too much time on free will debates in the past 12 months to go much deeper, but a common question that comes up is that if people don't have free will, what right do we have to hold them accountable for their actions? The simple reply I have is that we don't need "moral" accountability, in some metaphysical sense, we need to have means of keeping people from behaving in harmful and unfair ways.....

Traditionally, punishing bad people has been justified on four theories. (I used to say three. I think someone here supplied the fourth.)
1. Retribution. An eye for an eye. "They deserve to hang!"
2. Deterrence. If we don't punish it, people will do it more often.
3. Rehabilitation. A person who does bad needs to receive treatment to reduce the chance of them doing it again.
4. Public safety. We can't leave murdering psychopaths in the community because of the danger they pose to the safety of others in the community. (that's the new #4)

Of these four reasons for punishment, only #1, retribution, needs "moral accountability" to justify its use and importance. And in general, many people consider retribution a very weak justification for punishment, one that accomplishes nothing (and may lead to more harm), and may not even be moral.

The other justifications for punishment have rational reasons for doing them because of a tangible benefit to society (and maybe even the criminal him/herself). We don't need moral accountability to have a moral society. We need standards, standards with enforcement, and enforcement that means something and has a rational reason for its use.

</rant>