About This Forum

[Borodog]

Tom,

Chill. There's a rule; he didn't make it up. His job is to enforce it. If you try to circumvent it he would have to react the same way that he would if someone circumvented to profanifilter.

[Borodog]

Also, I am not convinced that iron81 has ever held a grudge against anyone for criticizing him or his moderation.

See? Watch this:

iron81,

Get a new avatar already. This one has sucked for too long.

**crosses fingers**

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Tom,

Chill. There's a rule; he didn't make it up. His job is to enforce it. If you try to circumvent it he would have to react the same way that he would if someone circumvented to profanifilter.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. This is why intent matters. If I try to circumvent the rule, I am not really breaking it. But the moderator uses his judgement to determine that I am breaking the INTENT of it. It's also not fair to complain here about the rule since its not really iron's rule. I will drop the issue.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I am not convinced that iron81 has ever held a grudge against anyone for criticizing him or his moderation.

See? Watch this:

iron81,

Get a new avatar already. This one has sucked for too long.

**crosses fingers**

[/ QUOTE ]

He just knows anyone who crosses you gets fired as a mod.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I am not convinced that iron81 has ever held a grudge against anyone for criticizing him or his moderation.

See? Watch this:

iron81,

Get a new avatar already. This one has sucked for too long.

**crosses fingers**

[/ QUOTE ]

He just knows anyone who crosses you gets fired as a mod.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
So is there anyone else who thinks the best way to handle problems we have with this forum in the future is in house rather than draggin it to ATF? Even if the complaints are about Iron's modding, I'd rather simply have it taken to him here and rejected than drag ATF into it again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Concur.

Although, as Thomas Jefferson and others would agree, we reserve the right to revolt if powers that be become overly oppressive ... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[latefordinner]

Tom: are you being deliberately incendiary here? Really, whether you like Iron or not he has shown himself quite capable of listening to people and reversing decisions originally made. There's no need, one day after the forum reopens, to stir up [censored] just because he is enforcing a 2+2 wide policy.

Pick your battles, yo.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Tom: are you being deliberately incendiary here? Really, whether you like Iron or not he has shown himself quite capable of listening to people and reversing decisions originally made. There's no need, one day after the forum reopens, to stir up [censored] just because he is enforcing a 2+2 wide policy.

Pick your battles, yo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I admit wrong here, I misread what Iron said about banning me for mentioning a loophole. On first pass, I thought he was threatening to ban me for mentioning it, when in reality he was threatening to ban me if I followed through with it. Iron was perfectly reasonable here and I agree with him. I do question his judgement skills (thinking LDK wasn't a troll is one example of it). But whatever, it is much better to have one person with poor judgement in charge than 4 (actually 3, I had no problems with [censored]).

[Utah]

Maybe I missed something because I am too busy to post here much, but what is wrong with this forum? I have been posting in this forum for many years and it is as good as it has been in a long time. I loved the 1-1 debate idea and I think there is a fairly good mix of posters.

Also, what is the deal with ACers? Is that topic off limits now? If so, why? That doesn't make any sense.

[Nielsio]

Some mod (don't know who) sent me some weird you're-banned-but-not-really messages about this message I posted in the republican presidential debate thread:

[ QUOTE ]
Is this like American Idol for Gangs?

[/ QUOTE ]


A little more elaboration would be nice.

I thought it was funny, because it was true.