| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
On September 25 2018 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote: Would I be right to presume our relationship is still too raw to joke about this? I have no idea as to what you're referencing. Enlighten me. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
On September 25 2018 07:27 Seeker wrote: I have no idea as to what you're referencing. Enlighten me. I'll take this as a maybe and go with: I'm sure we're all now curious whether Womwom has seen his error and why it needed to be addressed by mod action so that he not make such a problematic error again or if he agrees with Excludos that it's a silly rule enforced in a silly way. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
On September 25 2018 07:37 Plansix wrote: This is the most passive aggressive argument I’ve seen in a while. You must have missed this one? On September 24 2018 23:08 Plansix wrote: Sometimes the one liners are really good. Whoever saw em knows what I'm talking about. Anyway, I've had my fun for now, I'll stop bothering you guys here. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13738 Posts
On September 25 2018 11:04 ShoCkeyy wrote: I personally don't get why the text has to come before the source. I got warned for that at one point. I probably understand explaining your viewpoint before reading the article, but then that forces the reader to enter the article with a viewpoint that's not theres. Its about context. You add context (the bare minimum people are asking for) before the post so people have some understanding on what they're suppose to be reading. You put it afterwords and the onus is then on them to read it multiple times to get it, Once as they scroll down initialy and then again after you have explained what they just read and what they were suppose to get out of it. Your argument doesn't have to come before the article. Just saying "this tweet is by a journo from the NYT" or "this tweet by x politicians staffer" Is enough to not get actioned. Beacuse even that bare minimum effort is the context people are asking for your post not to be clogging up the thread with filler or worse. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 25 2018 19:24 Grumbels wrote: The discussion between Plansix and Danglars on the last two or so pages of the USP thread is honestly a good example of an annoying back and forth which makes the thread unreadable. That’s fair. I took the “have people not learned from duke and rolling stone” bait and then got concern trolled. I should have known better. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
It kind of turns it from Kavanaugh to how Plansix can’t trust me to actually support justice (faux Justice) and my predilections or whatever. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 25 2018 22:01 Plansix wrote: What can I say, I call it like I see it. Justice only becomes your topic of choice when comes to conservatives. You seem to not give two fucks the rest of the time. Yes, and since you immediately make it about me and what you think about my historical views on justice as it involves race rather than my views as expressed on Kavanaugh, you’re making it personal. I don’t give a fuck if you presume all this bad intent when I say the justice for accused weighs heavily here, as long as you can contain yourself and keep it to yourself to stay on topic. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 25 2018 22:16 Danglars wrote: Yes, and since you immediately make it about me and what you think about my historical views on justice as it involves race rather than my views as expressed on Kavanaugh, you’re making it personal. I don’t give a fuck if you presume all this bad intent when I say the justice for accused weighs heavily here, as long as you can contain yourself and keep it to yourself to stay on topic. That’s fair. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway7952 Posts
Ok, so I have apparently missed the updated header for the thread, which potentially makes my post make less sense than otherwise. Is it now always legal to post sources and tweets as long as they come after your text discussing them? If that's the case then Womwomwom's mistake was a lot smaller than I initially surmised, and I feel I maybe threw him under the bus a little. Earlier it wasn't allowed at all if I recall, before or after the text. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13738 Posts
On September 26 2018 03:26 Excludos wrote: Ok, so I have apparently missed the updated header for the thread, which potentially makes my post make less sense than otherwise. Is it now always legal to post sources and tweets as long as they come after your text discussing them? If that's the case then Womwomwom's mistake was a lot smaller than I initially surmised, and I feel I maybe threw him under the bus a little. Earlier it wasn't allowed at all if I recall, before or after the text. It was never not allowed. People said that it was beacuse they refused to do the bare minimum of giveing context to what they were filling up the thread with. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway7952 Posts
On September 26 2018 07:15 Sermokala wrote: It was never not allowed. People said that it was beacuse they refused to do the bare minimum of giveing context to what they were filling up the thread with. This is true to some extend. The issue was that after opening the last (and current) thread, the rules got stricter on when you could post tweets and links, but the rules were vague enough that people didn't understand when it was allowed or not, effectively making it illegal unless you felt like rolling the dice on getting a warning or not (Which I assume is the reason why the header has changed to be more clear. I just wanted to confirm it) | ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
Is the thread really any better off now than it was an hour ago? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
<citizen hat> GoTuNk!, Kavanaugh stinks. Why don't we find out the source of the stink before the vote? <mod hat> Also, to those of you treating this thread like a live report thread, please don't. It's not useful and in fact frustrating to be reading the thread and see a short post that just says "Wow, look at what he said!!!" I spent several minutes trying to come up with an argument for why that should totally be an emote but all I came up with was that it made me smile. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11926 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
PiGosaur Monday
OSC
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Code For Giants Cup
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
The PondCast
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Replay Cast
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
SC Evo Complete
Classic vs uThermal
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
