Rules revision

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.

Why is this even an issue? How immature are you guys that you plan to go around posting misleading links?

Welcome to last week, Grav.

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...

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.

So because D3v is retarded you make the rules retarded so he will follow them, even though that isn't working.

Even if you spell it out, he breaks the rules. The problem is when he is doing something that REALLY shouldn't be against the rules, but you ban him for it anyway. That's when D3v is no longer the retard and you are.

In my defense, when I banned him, I didn't know what the link lead to. Heck, I don't even now. All I knew was that it was clearly not the URL that it was labeled with.

In my defense, when I banned him, I didn't know what the link lead to. Heck, I don't even now. All I knew was that it was clearly not the URL that it was labeled with.

While I understand where you are coming from, that really isn't that great of a defense. You didn't even know what he had linked to, so you assumed it was something worth banning him for. At the very least, you should have asked him what he had linked to before banning him.

Then again, it's not my place to tell you how to enforce the rules. I'm probably overstepping my bounds. I disagree with what you did, however.

In my defense, when I banned him, I didn't know what the link lead to. Heck, I don't even now. All I knew was that it was clearly not the URL that it was labeled with.

So, you banned me because the URL differed from the /hyperlink text. Nice job I guess maybe next time you should have somebody check it out for you before blindly banning instead of assuming.

I didn't have to assume. It was clearly misleading, and thus against the rules. You're accusing me over banning you for a harmless rulebreaking, when infact I didn't know it was harmless.

So everybody follow my rules and STFU. Thank you and have a blessed day.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm open to discussion about some rules, this one included, we just need to get past bickering about what's behind us.

No no. I'm saying everybody follow my rules about the misleading link policy. First post of this page.

I think that the not being allowed to type everything in caps is stupid.

I'd say it was a good rule if the people who abused it actually read the rules.

They don't.

AND I SHOULD BE ABLE TO YELL =D

WHAT IF SOMEONE FORGOT CAPS LOCK WAS ON AND WASN'T LOOKING AT THE SCREEN. THEY TYOE A HUGE THING THEN FIND THAT IT IS ALL IN CAPS. WHAT HAPPENS THEN?

I was not yelling. All caps looks awesome though.