Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.

[LastPoet]

We have to consult with our accounting department, to make sure such bets don't pose a fiscal liability to the forum.

[Pyrrho]

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.

[Longhorn]

We have to consult with our accounting department, to make sure such bets don't pose a fiscal liability to the forum.

tax em, I say, tax the living shit out of them

[LastPoet]

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.

[Cyberman]

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.

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?

[c172]

Almost reported the "You near them all the nasty sup the question" post, but it was apparently reported. I like that new feature.

[c172]

Anvand...you are banned!

[robvalue]

Why you no sell me r0k crushz0r!?

[ignoramus]

Nuffin left bro!
Jus sum sorterz, z'all

[Iroscato]

That was a particularly hard-working spambot earlier. I looked at Today's Posts and thought something had gone wonky with the forum code