His selective memory is about as far from a new discovery as you can get, WetWired.

I generally agree with you, Raziel. I don't believe D3v will continue to be how he is, he has even hinted at reverting a bit lately, when he challenges rules and knows he's going to get banned just so he can bitch about it.

However, it was dumb to ban him in this case. If the links posted were not harmful, it's really dumb to ban him for it. In this case, I don't support WW in enforcing the rules. Before, I did, because having very nearly naked women on the public forums could be NSFW, and since a lot of people surf from work, that's a problem.

However, in this case, it was a link, which was completely harmless, and completely optional to click. WW was just looking for an excuse to ban D3v, in my opinion.

Oh, I agree with you entirely King. A ban for a harmless link is a bit overboard, in my opinion. A loser tag, or something less severe, seems more appropriate to me.

If everybody else was getting banned for the same things, (rick Roll'd) then I wouldn't care, I probably wouldn't even bother. This thread is fucking retarded, and WW is still on his power trip which is never going to change because these forums are never going to grow if we keep the same trend of spectacular retardedness.

As I've said twice already, if I was made aware, everyone else would be getting banned for it.

The issue isn't that stuff like this is necessarily harmful, the issue is how do you clearly define the line between harmful and not when it comes to
It's easier to just outlaw all of it.

I'd argue against that, as would 99% of the rest of the members on here, atleast thinking the rules are stupid for the majority.

Anyways in that case, K_A used a Rick Roll'd link earlier today in the Flame forum, ban?

Can I get a link, or a thread title?

Well, it wasn't misleading in any way. I just told Kyeruu it represents how I feel about him.

In a sarcastic sort of way, no?

Of course.

Regardless, that link wasn't misleading in any way. Either way, I would think it dumb to be banned for it, and I still disagree with D3v's ban. Zero Tolerance=Zero Intelligence.

I was being sarcastic in Brittney Spears being dead. Do you honestly think if she really died I would post a youtube video? Jesus christ, there would atleast be a news story pasted along with it.

I don't think the youtube video is what got you banned. The first link you posted was made to LOOK like a news story but it linked to something completely different.

Oh yeah durka dur. Even still, We have tons of nerds on here that actually look at the hyperlink before clicking.

But there are still some that will click the link without looking. You could just as easily link to a trojan. That's WW's point, I believe. My problem with that is he's taking an all or nothing stance on it, when there is a lot of gray area in the middle. I don't think someone should be banned for rickrolling, I do think someone should be banned for posting a fake link that goes to a trojan or to a website where they gain something from getting clicks.

We do all have brains and we should be able to think "Is this bad enough to warrant a ban?" Your post wasn't harmful in any way, you gained nothing from it, and if anything you probably gave a few people some laughs. It was just more activity for the forums, that was in no way harmful, so in turn WW banned you for a day and decreased activity on the forums, over a stupid technicality.

I think that's bullshit, but unfortunately for you, I don't call the shots.

Well, I made a revamp rules thread a while back and every point I tried to create was shot down, I don't really know what else we can do. Maybe just get over it and drone to the shitty rules.

Possibly make a poll? Maybe that will sway WW's decision.

You could send him a fruit basket. A nice fruit basket always greases the wheels.