Rules revision

Zing, remove both of them, and assign 2 people as news posters.

The indecent exposure rule is pretty dumb... I mean, I got temp banned for posting something that could be found in a gradeschool textbook (or at least high school).

I dont think Xenn should be allowed to get banned.

And D3V, i think you're just saying things now so that you can have some peresonal satisfaction by saying that you changed Zelaron. De-Modding them will do nothing. You can still add 2 newsposters. The problem is, who the hell wants to be a newsposter?

Misleading link is as K_A said, too onesided. Either it's bannable or not, when really there are instances where it could be okay, or for comedy. Trojan and links to porn, and/or virus websites or anything that could be harmful should obviously be bannable, but if you link to a Rick Roll'd video, or something stupid, like a yougotowned.com website, then the comedy and sarcasm should be noted, and not taken seriously.

Wholeheartedly agree. Because I'm about to post a misleading link that is completely harmless.

Watch out!

Then clearly define the difference between a harmful misleading link and a non-harmful one, and the rule might change.

Harmful misleading links include:

- Any link that prompts you to download something, whether it be a virus, spyware, program, ANYTHING downloaded = no no.
- Any link that generates a 'hit' for the user that gave the link. Like those pyramid schemes where people generate money with so many clicks, etc etc.
- Any link that locks up your computer with a ton of pop-ups or annoying ads.
- Any link that takes you to grotesque pictures (NoNoNoNoNoNo, tubgirl, 2girls1cup, etc)

Harmless misleading links:

- Being RickRoll'd
- A flash video letting you know you've been owned
- Anything relatively comical
*Basically anything that does not harm you or your computer in any way.

There you have it. That's the basic consensus of 90% of the members here.

Then clearly define the difference between a harmful misleading link and a non-harmful one, and the rule might change.

Why not just use your judgement? Seriously, that's why we have humans moderating instead of robots. It's not that hard to determine whether or not a link is harmless.

Sure it is.

For instance, generally we can say a page with viruses is bad bombin'. But what about the Rick Roll page? The seemingly innocuous video sent me into violent convulsions after being overwhelmed by the raucous clash between upbeat hooks and that tenor voice of his that should not belong to a white man. I think it was the cumulative effect of having seen the video OVER 9000 times!!! Had I been any closer to the window, your video could have been the death of me.

So is it really as harmless as it seems? Is it? Is it?!

The more a rule relies on human judgement, the more the offender will dispute your judgement. And considering that D3V can't comprehend such simple issues as what is work safe and what isn't, some people just need it spelled out.

The indecent exposure rule is pretty dumb... I mean, I got temp banned for posting something that could be found in a gradeschool textbook (or at least high school).

My text book has completely naked people in it. And those people are real too! Why can't it be posted here? Just warn people that they may come across this. Or make a thread type that warns the user about what it contains before they enter it.

My text book has completely naked people in it. And those people are real too! Why can't it be posted here? Just warn people that they may come across this. Or make a thread type that warns the user about what it contains before they enter it.

I suggested that as well. Just put NWS (Not WORK Safe) at the top of the thread if you are going to...