Since when is a video that have posted on RFD with swear worrd like S**T & M****R F*****G is consider PG ?
report-apple-looking-purchase-beats-ele ... n-1479974/ #15
May 11th, 2014 9:48 pm
Since when is a video that have posted on RFD with swear worrd like S**T & M****R F*****G is consider PG ?
May 30th, 2014 10:06 am
May 30th, 2014 12:19 pm
Look at your infraction tab and the expiration date of infractions. When you are under 10 points you will be out of the box...
May 30th, 2014 12:27 pm
Embedding no, but posting a link to it seems acceptable. However, mods' response time has dropped dramatically.bargainshunter wrote: ↑Since when is a video that have posted on RFD with swear worrd like S**T & M****R F*****G is consider PG ?
report-apple-looking-purchase-beats-ele ... n-1479974/ #15
May 30th, 2014 12:50 pm
Linking to content which is inappropriate and against the rules would be no different than embedding it.joeyjoejoe wrote: ↑Embedding no, but posting a link to it seems acceptable. However, mods' response time has dropped dramatically.
May 30th, 2014 1:11 pm
Honestly, it's summer now and were busy just like everyone else. We do it when we can but we're out enjoying the nice weather just like others are. I'm rarely inside in the summer, and it's not as quick or easy to do certain things from my phone. We do what we can thoughjoeyjoejoe wrote: ↑Embedding no, but posting a link to it seems acceptable. However, mods' response time has dropped dramatically.
May 30th, 2014 1:23 pm
May 30th, 2014 1:52 pm
I always thought that indirect approach was the imaginary line of what is acceptable... at least from what I've seen in the modding. Example: The post which bargainshunter flagged was edited by a mod to remove the embedded video. But the link which goes to an article with the same video is still there.
I'm not taking about a few hours or even days. I'm talking about weeks to never. In the past, it was the less popular forums which got very slow response time to no response at all (ie Pets forum), but now this lag is in more popular forums.
Jun 6th, 2014 10:33 am
Jun 8th, 2014 1:31 pm
Jul 9th, 2014 5:38 pm
Jul 9th, 2014 5:45 pm
Jul 9th, 2014 5:57 pm
all of the mods are volunteersLongLiveRFD wrote: ↑I have always wondered if the mods are all volunteers
Jul 9th, 2014 10:38 pm
Jul 9th, 2014 11:39 pm
I kind of wonder about this too...there have been some new users lately that seem really familiar with the forum and its members, so you just know they have had accounts before. I think I recall one of the mods saying if they want to start a new account and they behave themselves, it's not as bad as if they were on here to troll.BinaryJay wrote: ↑I'm genuinely interested in hearing what the administration's opinion on what good banning actually does?
It does not actually stop a person from posting. It only stops a "user". Since new accounts can be freely created... it's more like banning somebody's pants from a building, but not the person wearing them. Banning by IP is probably not done, because these days IPs frequently change hands and are easily completely bypassed through tunneling anyway. Using cookies or other client side tokens is no good because you can use many PCs, many different browsers, and easily clear them out.
Jul 10th, 2014 6:58 am
Not all users will create a new account. Those who come here to spam a business will likely move on after being banned. Those people have to be banned otherwise they'll continue to spam. Someone who has been here a while but keeps breaking the rules resulting in a ban may create a new account. These types of people sometimes try harder to follow the rules the second time around because they don't want to be banned again. If they want to create another account and follow the rules, they are free to do so. We aren't going to go on a witch hunt looking for duplicate accounts if they're not causing any trouble. Those who join just to stir up trouble will likely continue creating accounts until they get tired of us banning them and then they'll move on to some other site.BinaryJay wrote: ↑I'm genuinely interested in hearing what the administration's opinion on what good banning actually does?
It does not actually stop a person from posting. It only stops a "user". Since new accounts can be freely created... it's more like banning somebody's pants from a building, but not the person wearing them. Banning by IP is probably not done, because these days IPs frequently change hands and are easily completely bypassed through tunneling anyway. Using cookies or other client side tokens is no good because you can use many PCs, many different browsers, and easily clear them out.
Jul 10th, 2014 4:24 pm
Jul 12th, 2014 11:10 pm
Jul 12th, 2014 11:44 pm
Jul 13th, 2014 10:40 pm