Updated Board Rules - Please Read

Im trying to work out what you are defending him for here? Reporting a 10 year old post or am i missing something?

Up to you. I just see it as statement of fact, especially considering I'm by no means the only one to think it.....just like "everyone" thinks Dayton is a "moron", right?

The ten year old post is being used as an excuse to introduce a rule that basically outlaws anything but extremely infrequent reports (say, one a year). That's why they won't reveal the statistics and reasoning behind it. Just relying on "it's three people who report the most" as an excuse. When one of those people has an average of about 3-4 reports a months then you know that there can be no argument of excessive use, so I'm calling bullshit on the whole think because of their inability to be transparent and the apparent lie that they can offer up the amount of times there's a report. They cite lack of statistics because of lack of records, well how can they make a rule up like this if they don't have the evidence to back it up?

Stall, the whole thing stinks. It's just another excuse to pile on Dayton and it's just as tenuous as the reasons behind his and Castle's bans.

You have no understanding of how the system software works, and you don't know any of the report statistics. Please stop making up numbers.

And you never will el chup. Especially after smudging it the last time. Wanker.

I don't necessarily think that it's OK to flame or troll anyone outside of the Red Room, but it's not my board.

I also think that it's quite a stretch to categorize unequivocal and objective truths as flaming.

I know how often I use the report function. So if I am one of the famous three then of course I know how frequent my reports are, which then leaves only two people remaining out of the entire board who are allegedly abusing.

Calling me a wanker in the Help Desk to get me to click the report button? Come on, I wasn't born yesterday.

Which means you don't know any of the report statistics. That hasn't stopped you from throwing out numbers, or claiming that the issue doesn't really exist, but it still doesn't change the fact that you don't know. You're expending energy over nothing. Gathered together, your posts create a long winded supposition and nothing more. It's the prosecuting attorney in the courtroom who likes to hear himself talk: he goes on and on about his perceived injustice, while self righteously decrying the draconian policies of those at the top who push down against the innocent! Usually, though, all it means is that while the prosecuting attorney drones on about a tempest in a teapot, the judge is looking at his watch to see when it's time to adjourn for dinner, and all the jury wants to do is get it over with so they can go home to take care of things in their lives that actually matter.


TL;DR - This is the "Justin Bieber goes to jail" of complaints.

By the way, why the reference to "Enterpriser" and "lawyering the rules"? Wasn't Enterpriser back on the TrekBBS? What is the significance of something from more than a DECADE ago on ANOTHER BOARD?

For that matter what is wrong with "lawyering the rules"?

To someone who apparently reported a post made over a decade ago on this board? You've just answered your own question.

It turns them into tools against rather than for the intention for which they were originally designed.

I reported something that was posted on THIS BOARD and is STILL FULLY ACCESSIBLE to people here.

IIRC neither of those applies to Enterpriser.

Really garamet.......

And is indicative of a particular mindset.

As for Enterpriser, he apparently registered here under a different username at one point and pretended to be a liberal. Tamar somehow found out who he was and banned him...for reasons so obscure (or nonexistent) that I have no idea what they were, much less how she knew who he was...

Yeah, there used to be some ridiculously bad shit done around here, and yet a couple people get bent out of shape by the idea that somebody might lose a single feature.

[edit]Excelcius is not banned, though I can't say that he wasn't banned in 2007 when he stopped posting. We unbanned just about everybody when we took over, so he might have benefited from the amnesty. For the record, I'd have no problem with Enterpriser or somebody like him posting here. Users have all the tools we need to handle him.

I love that a decade later, we can still be fighting about Enterpriser.

It's like coming home, guys!

Just for your arrival, I chose not to wear underwear.

I'm the opposite.

I put on a pair in your honor.