The first time someone gets shawed and gets butthurt enough to abuse the alert feature by @ing everyone in the forum will be funny.It would be one thing if I could stop alerts from dragging people to their threads ...
Annoying the community serially for years is okay, but the second you spam the mods/admins, then that's a banning!
My opinion is that Tanoomba should be rickshawed for destroying any thread outside the Retard Rickshaw, and should allowed to destroy every thread in the Retard Rickshaw.Should Tanoomba be allowed to continue to destroy the Gamergate thread without any repercussions, as was the norm when you were ruler of the land, Tuco?
The first time someone gets shawed and gets butthurt enough to abuse the alert feature by @ing everyone in the forum will be funny.
If you don't turn it off we'll have to start banning people who do that, much like report abusers.
I was actually thinking more about them posting blocks of alerts, as in, hundreds of alerts every post every few minutes. This bothers me a lot more than them alerting the small number of mods/admins. I wouldn't care that much if I logged on in the morning and saw 156 alerts all from the same person.Seems about accurate.
He already has incurred repercussions.Should Tanoomba be allowed to continue to destroy the Gamergate thread without any repercussions, as was the norm when you were ruler of the land, Tuco?
I was actually thinking more about them posting blocks of alerts, as in, hundreds of alerts every post every few minutes. This bothers me a lot more than them alerting the small number of mods/admins. I wouldn't care that much if I logged on in the morning and saw 156 alerts all from the same person.
He already has incurred repercussions.
If that was the case me locking and moving threads should have had no effect.The shaw has always been a free for all. The idea that anything there could be destroyed is silly.
He wasn't destroying multiple threads until someone locked his.Intentionally avoiding the substance for tangentials is the sign you've failed to come up with a cogent rebuttal to the substance, sir.
The substance is that its okay to serially, and intentionally, annoy the community, like Tanoomba has, for years, without repercussions, but the second someone annoys you personally, then its okay to ban them.
By....being able to destroy multiple personal threads in the shaw?
If that was the case me locking and moving threads should have had no effect.
He wasn't destroying multiple threads until someone locked his.
Intentionally misrepresenting what people are saying is disingenuous. Unintentionally doing so is incompetence. I don't care if I get alert-spammed, I do care when the entire community does. Rewrite that into whatever strawmen you desire, nobody will be impressed when you beat it up.Intentionally avoiding the substance for tangentials is the sign you've failed to come up with a cogent rebuttal to the substance, sir.
The substance is that its okay to serially, and intentionally, annoy the community, like Tanoomba has, for years, without repercussions, but the second someone annoys you personally, then its okay to ban them.
By....being able to destroy multiple personal threads in the shaw?
If that means the inmates run the show, mission accomplished.
The mission is defined by the people.When Furor made the Rickshaw, was the stated mission to allow the inmates to run the show there?
Can we get a citation on that?
Because Furor's personality leads me to believe that when he created the Retard Rickshaw, it was to punish retards.
You're basically accusing him of destroying a toilet that you bought for him by shitting in it.It was actually my thread. I made it. I also probably had as many or more posts in it than he did.
He shouldn't be able to destroy any threads when he's throwing a fit over a shawing that he intentionally brought down on himself.
He knew exactly what he was doing. He went into that thread to make it happen.