Notice of Thread/Post Moderation A place where moderators describe action
#321
Posted 2012-September-05, 11:59
George Carlin
#322
Posted 2012-September-05, 16:34
gwnn, on 2012-September-05, 11:59, said:
Whatever, upvotes can't really spam my interest that much--it's when someone is actually trolling that's an issue.
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
#323
Posted 2012-September-05, 21:08
#324
Posted 2012-September-06, 00:06
aguahombre, on 2012-September-05, 09:14, said:
♥♥♥
Yes, that is what I would suggest, those that do not like it: BLOCK.
So simple.
♥♥♥
#325
Posted 2012-September-06, 00:13
Antrax, on 2012-September-05, 21:08, said:
♥♥♥
Yes,
know that i used to comment a lot - always constructive and polite, nobody can tell anything else - but a couple a members - I will not name them now, management knows - started harassing me, just because I was using some !H symbols in my posts.
Do you think that is serious ?
♥♥♥
#326
Posted 2012-September-06, 00:14
Laying out a message with 3 hearts at the top and bottom is just fine. Honestly, this takes up less space than some signatures and personalises content in much the same way. What I do find less appealing is quoting a message and simply adding a large heart as the reply text. This adds nothing and does take up bandwidth. It is not much different in my mind from quoting a message without adding any text, which also happens from time to time. I suspect my attitude on this comes from using the internet at a time when larger messages took a considerable time to download and therefore unnecessary content, and especially unnecessary quoting, was a Netiquette no-no. Another rule at the time, which I think is still a useful guide, was that signatures should not be longer than 5 lines. I think if everyone were to look at their personalised content and make sure that it is no more than 5-6 lines in total this would not be a bad thing.
♥ ♥ ♥
#327
Posted 2012-September-06, 00:14
semeai, on 2012-September-05, 11:05, said:
That said, Lurpoa, making exaggerated claims isn't going to help things. Just use your hearts, we know you love them so much, and don't worry about it.
♥
#328
Posted 2012-September-06, 00:17
Zelandakh, on 2012-September-06, 00:14, said:
Laying out a message with 3 hearts at the top and bottom is just fine. Honestly, this takes up less space than some signatures and personalises content in much the same way. What I do find less appealing is quoting a message and simply adding a large heart as the reply text. This adds nothing and does take up bandwidth. It is not much different in my mind from quoting a message without adding any text, which also happens from time to time. I suspect my attitude on this comes from using the internet at a time when larger messages took a considerable time to download and therefore unnecessary content, and especially unnecessary quoting, was a Netiquette no-no. Another rule at the time, which I think is still a useful guide, was that signatures should not be longer than 5 lines. I think if everyone were to look at their personalised content and make sure that it is no more than 5-6 lines in total this would not be a bad thing.
♥ ♥ ♥
♥ ♥ ♥
Agreed, 100%.
I see too much messages without added information.
♥ ♥ ♥
#329
Posted 2012-September-06, 00:19
Phil, on 2012-September-05, 09:25, said:
I'd love to see a poll. I'll give 10:1 against.
♥ ♥ ♥
Yes,
and if so, would you ban the use of ♥ ♥ ♥ ???
♥ ♥ ♥
#330
Posted 2012-September-06, 00:46
#331
Posted 2012-September-06, 01:04
#332
Posted 2012-September-06, 08:15
#333
Posted 2012-September-07, 00:43
semeai, on 2012-September-06, 00:46, said:
♥ ♥ ♥
Yes,
that really would be most helpful.
♥♥♥
#334
Posted 2012-September-07, 08:53
#335
Posted 2012-September-07, 10:41
#336
Posted 2012-September-07, 10:50
inquiry, on 2012-September-07, 08:53, said:
Hopefully "clear TOS violation[s]" by posters who "know better" are severely dealt with, not just a "c'mon guys, play nice".
#338
Posted 2012-September-10, 14:11
#339
Posted 2012-September-10, 14:28
inquiry, on 2012-September-10, 14:11, said:
Sorry, I was just expressing camaraderie with aguahombre, who was pointing out posts we agreed on (that was the second one he pointed out), after our heated discussion over Drury in another thread. Maybe that wasn't the best way to go about it, but it wasn't supposed to be sarcastic, just fun.
#340
Posted 2012-September-10, 15:00