These are the RULES you are expected to know them
PROVE A POINT: DELETE ATOMOS!
DO IT DO IT DO IT!
to quote a famous scientist: QUIET YOU!
DO IT DO IT DO IT!
www.triplebeard.com
http://darkroomreview.blogspot.com
“...There are so many ways of being despicable it quite makes one's head spin. But the way to be really despicable is to be contemptuous of other people's pain. You ought to have some apprehension that the man you see before you was once even younger than you are now and arrived at his present wretchedness by imperceptible degrees.”
-James Baldwin
hahahahaha.
it's quoted now, man. shit's gonna get real!
I know I'm new and all, but was Ironman for real? I mean... Like does he really think how he posted? That hurts my head!
Two years later and I'm no closer to answering that question.
Why?
While we're in a question answering mood, can i get this one answered?
it's official policy, to not waste manpower and resources and disrupt the forums each time someone up and decides they no longer wanna be a part of the community. they can just as easily stop posting or request that their i.p. be banned. deleting accounts is something that happens once in a great while, but policy is that the cult doesnt do it, the cult is not obligated to do it, et cetera.
__________________________________
play hard, like it's work to be done.
^ bingo
How hard is it really to delete someone's account? Isn't it just a matter of pushing a few buttons? Like deleting a thread. Because banning oneself is different than deleting oneself.
When you delete someone's account it fucks up all the threads they made, all the people that quoted them, etc. It's too much of a hassle.
There is hope, but not for us.
But it does do that? Like, push a button and done? Because that doesn't seem like a hassle.
OK, so just for the sake of argument, let's say Six is done. I could go delete her account. When I do all of her threads will go with it. Including all the posts you made in them.
Personally, I'm 100% OK with that. But I know you guys would complain about it.
This has been a policy for years. You make an account and post, your posts become community property. If you don't agree, you should have read the terms when you signed up.
So, even if i ask to have my account deleted, i can't?
That is correct.
OZY LIVES!
Brentinlouis Wrote: What was that rule about being intentionally annoying?
Not for long.
Not for long.
he was completely unjustifiably banned and everyone knows it.
Brentinlouis Wrote: What was that rule about being intentionally annoying?
Of course...
well, if anyone wants to see the missing post outside of the cult, I think about thirty people screen capped it.
Brentinlouis Wrote: What was that rule about being intentionally annoying?
Ninja Simon-
If you're going to go around calling someone a douche, at least be smart enough to get their name right.
Thanks for playing.
Austan Jamez
"Plus, if I go too long without writing I start to turn into a real asshole." -misterwoe
"She'll like what she's told to like." -Mo'Don
Ninja Simon-
If you're going to go around calling someone a douche, at least be smart enough to get their name right.
Thanks for playing.
Austan Jamez
your nose is all brown.
Ninja Simon-
If you're going to go around calling someone a douche, at least be smart enough to get their name right.
Thanks for playing.
Austan Jamez
her name is nina, not ninja. Hah!
Brentinlouis Wrote: What was that rule about being intentionally annoying?
It's funny cuz it's true.
"Plus, if I go too long without writing I start to turn into a real asshole." -misterwoe
"She'll like what she's told to like." -Mo'Don
Ninja Simon-
If you're going to go around calling someone a douche, at least be smart enough to get their name right.
Thanks for playing.
Austan Jamez
your nose is all brown.
Do not harass or intentionally annoy the mods or insult the website or website staff. If you do not like the mods or the rules, feel free to leave.
I have a general question. I think that the wording of "annoy" is off. I mean, I'm annoyed by plenty of people here. I'm sure mods are "annoyed" as well. But being "annoyed" isn't reason to ban someone. Or threaten them either. Can't it just be harass? I mean, harass is more malicious and continued, while annoying can just be fleeting, and the way it's written it's like just because you annoy someone happens to be in a (deserving or not) position of power you have reason to be 'let go'. It's rather bad wording in general.
Brentinlouis Wrote: What was that rule about being intentionally annoying?
IMPORTANT: Please do not try to cleverly circumvent some rule listed here.
IMPORTANT: Please do not try to cleverly circumvent some rule listed here.
I'm not trying to circumvent rules, I've done nothing wrong. I'm merely suggesting that the wording of the rule you posted before this one is bad in it's wording. Annoy is really the wrong word and implies a whim of a feeling. Don't threaten me when I've done nothing wrong.
Brentinlouis Wrote: What was that rule about being intentionally annoying?
They've already made it clear that they don't care what the rules actually SAY. They care about what they imply and other unspoken rules and things. It's all very zen.
"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." -Carl Sagan
"Am I cruel? Probably. Is she an idiot? Yes." -jane s.
They've already made it clear that they don't care what the rules actually SAY. They care about what they imply and other unspoken rules and things. It's all very zen.
well that's just silly.
Brentinlouis Wrote: What was that rule about being intentionally annoying?
They've already made it clear that they don't care what the rules actually SAY. They care about what they imply and other unspoken rules and things. It's all very zen.
well that's just silly.
Very.
"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." -Carl Sagan
"Am I cruel? Probably. Is she an idiot? Yes." -jane s.
{POOF!}
Wizardry.
They've already made it clear that they don't care what the rules actually SAY. They care about what they imply and other unspoken rules and things. It's all very zen.
well that's just silly.
Is it your Cultiversary Levi? i just noticed it is your Cultiversary. Happy Cultiversary Levi. 
They've already made it clear that they don't care what the rules actually SAY. They care about what they imply and other unspoken rules and things. It's all very zen.
well that's just silly.
Is it your Cultiversary Levi? i just noticed it is your Cultiversary. Happy Cultiversary Levi. :)
OMG!!!!!!! YOU'RE RIGHT!!!
Brentinlouis Wrote: What was that rule about being intentionally annoying?
Wizardry.
I'm a wizard!
I think you should be allowed to say WHATEVER YOU WANT to anyone today and not be under threat of a rule break ban! This should be a new rule for everyone on their Cultiversary.
(don''t take my word for it, though,nnot official, I have no power)
Wizardry.
I'm a wizard! :O
pete, you're a level headed guy. Can my question be addressed? I'm not trying to circumvent any rules. I just think the word annoy implies banning on a whim. Am I wrong?
Brentinlouis Wrote: What was that rule about being intentionally annoying?
Wizardry.
I'm a wizard! :O
pete, you're a level headed guy. Can my question be addressed? I'm not trying to circumvent any rules. I just think the word annoy implies banning on a whim. Am I wrong?
I understand where you coming from. But you're also looking into it too much.
Besides - I don't write the rules. I just follow them. 
how can you follow a rule that's so..... intangible, though? I mean, i am annoyed by misspellings and stupid threads about pretentious bullshit. I know i'm not a mod, but how can you judge annoying versus harassment?
I know steve has pointed this out, that I'm wasting my time on a rule that is meant to be interpretive (which isn't good) and there is the blanket statement that lets mods and admins do whatever they want, so why not have the rules read:
MODS AND ADMINS CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.
Seems simpler. I'll stop now, but it's a legitimate problem that has driven many people away from this place. I'm sure no one cares though.
Brentinlouis Wrote: What was that rule about being intentionally annoying?
I also didn't write the rules, but I can see why they used the word annoy rather than harass. I mean when people create multiple alt accounts in order to continue to post from somehwere they are no longer welcomed, it can get pretty annoying. I mean, technically, we are not being harassed by the alt accounts (sometimes we are though), so when someone who continues to show their immaturity by coming here in order to stroke their own ego by creating alt accounts in order to "show" us up it can get rather annoying. Take that for what it's worth.
I think this has a deeper meaning, but I'm too shallow to be sure. Perhaps a some sort of metaphor for an alien invasion?
"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." -Carl Sagan
"Am I cruel? Probably. Is she an idiot? Yes." -jane s.
well, that's where your discretion comes into play, and i understand that. But it still seems like a word that allows for buzzer jump lightning fast bannings on whims.
it's silly though. all of it. so, forget i mentioned it.
Brentinlouis Wrote: What was that rule about being intentionally annoying?
It says do not intentionally annoy the mods. Which might not count as harassment, but is almost as bad. If you're intending to piss someone off it's completely different from accidentally doing it.
"Plus, if I go too long without writing I start to turn into a real asshole." -misterwoe
"She'll like what she's told to like." -Mo'Don
Why even post?
"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." -Carl Sagan
"Am I cruel? Probably. Is she an idiot? Yes." -jane s.
We already went over all this last week people. Move on to something new, this topic is tiresome.
Levi, at this point, you're really just splitting hairs over the use of a single word "annoy". It's clear what the point of that rule is, I know you're smart enough to interpret it properly and what it actually means. Especially since you haven't been banned. I'm not going to change the wording to something you find more appropriate because then you'll find some other minor point to debate.
that's not true. you can't deny that 'annoy' is more a whim based thing, which is the largest part of people's struggle. that they feel without cause, they can be banned over nothing. I know that even if you change it, it won't change the way the site is run, and I've said multiple times that i do understand the nature of the decision as frank put it quite well, and I've also been very civil about my question. it's been answered by pete and frank, and I was over it. I get the reply. I can still think it's silly though.
Brentinlouis Wrote: What was that rule about being intentionally annoying?
Read in context, it isn't whim based. The exact phrasing is
"Do not harass or intentionally annoy the mods"
The important word there is INTENTIONALLY.
It is only a struggle for people who are intentionally trying to be a pain in the ass. The vast majority of people who post never have a problem like this at all. There is a small percentage that just like to push buttons. You know who these people are and you spot out when they are doing this just as easily as we do.
i thought you deleted one of my lurking accounts, kirk. dont lie to this poor man. i mean, yeah dont delete his account. he doesnt deserve it. but dont lie.
www.triplebeard.com
http://darkroomreview.blogspot.com
“...There are so many ways of being despicable it quite makes one's head spin. But the way to be really despicable is to be contemptuous of other people's pain. You ought to have some apprehension that the man you see before you was once even younger than you are now and arrived at his present wretchedness by imperceptible degrees.”
-James Baldwin