The rulebook should probably be updated

No. Once the matter's dealt with, it's dealt with, unless the Admins decide that there's something new that requires it to be revisited.

If I have your name and state of residence, I can own you.

You don't even really need to state of residence these days.

Well, actually you do. There's a lot of people who can share the same name, so you have to narrow it down.

Depends on the name. I'm pretty much the only person with my name out there.

How 'bout just don't be a dick about peoples' personal info?

^^^ Your name is Steve Martin????

No, it's Chevy Chase.

Statute of limitations wouldn't be the correct term. Ex post facto would the the term you're looking for, and no.

Matt Foley.

Ah, well, then.

Paladin did what was in his power to do. But either because I didn't complain at the time, or because my name was changed in attributing the PM, or for some reason not spelled out in Rule #5, the perp skated.

Now, I don't care whether there's a follow up on this particular instance or not.

However, I do care that Rule #5 seems to be extremely flexible depending upon who's interpreting it.

Just give me a retroactive ban so she'll stop whining about it.

The war without end..............

Yes, it is flexible....it is meant to be flexible.

Paladin had a private word with Peter at the time and was told what would happen if it happened again. The PM hardly contained earth-shattering private information, just some snarky comeback. The degree of the offense was pretty small and thus a word was all that was really required.

Some situations just doesn't have a "one size fits all" rule to cover them. We prefer to have as few rules as possible, with as much leeway as possible to keep a balance between enjoyment for everyone and some kind of consequences. Thankfully, most of the community seems to feel the same way and really, as far as BBS' go there are relatively few rules violations most of the time.

I just want to let you know that if anyway of you mother-frakkers wanna steal MY identity...


You are welcome to it.


Take my life...


No, please, take my life...

So uhh.....yeah...any update on this?

FUCK NO!!!

Two posts above yours:

And a few days before that, both Elwood and Bear were giving examples on how the wording should look for the new rule.

So will that wording be incorporated into the new rule?

Rep warring in the HD?

My post was made on Saturday morning. Perhaps the board's clock needs adjusting as well?

The question remains unanswered. I realize staff is busy, and didn't want to ask again too soon, lest I be accused of spamming. In waiting this long, I realized I would be running the risk of being accused of trolling.

Now I surmise the thread will be closed and the rule will remain unaltered and open to individual interpretation.

The only question that may or may not be answered is whether or not neg-repping in the HD earns a cautionary.

Neg repping in the HD is not per se against the rules.

Rep warring outside the RR/Gray Room is.

The. Fucking. End.

Tamar answered your question. That you don't seem to accept her authority as an admin on this board is your problem.

Again...

Neg reps are not forbidden anywhere on the board, only the abuse of the rep system. Leaving a serious neg rep because you honestly disagree with the post is not against the rules.

It's not a question of not accepting anyone's authority, but of the thread's still being open, and several posts following Tamar's.

One might logically assume that the subject was still under discussion.