![]() |
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | |||
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Zem |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 |
| User | Post | ||
|
Zem Permabanned. Flaming, trolling, reregistering. Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6230 days Last view: 6230 days |
| ||
| this seems to be shaping up as more of a list thread than a chat thread | |||
|
Zem Permabanned. Flaming, trolling, reregistering. Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6230 days Last view: 6230 days |
| ||
| this is the case with apparently every single N64 emulator with paper mario specifically, or at least it was a few years ago when I was last trying N64 emulation. most compatibility lists will be like, "paper mario: works, with flickering" | |||
|
Zem Permabanned. Flaming, trolling, reregistering. Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6230 days Last view: 6230 days |
| ||
| that was a little too easy there buddy
speaking of too easy, maybe you should make it not show up in online.php, eh? not that that's where I got it from. |
|||
|
Zem Permabanned. Flaming, trolling, reregistering. Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6230 days Last view: 6230 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Trapster What things? There's not even any nudity. And as for the rest of your post, what is wrong with you? Do you make no sense just to irritate me? Because it is working extremely fucking well. (edited by Zem on 03-14-06 05:25 AM) |
|||
|
Zem Permabanned. Flaming, trolling, reregistering. Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6230 days Last view: 6230 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Adamant been and (apparently) gone |
|||
|
Zem Permabanned. Flaming, trolling, reregistering. Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6230 days Last view: 6230 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Trapster this surprised me a trapster post with substance and no irrelevant padding I encourage you to keep this up |
|||
|
Zem Permabanned. Flaming, trolling, reregistering. Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6230 days Last view: 6230 days |
| ||
| So yeah, my post quality has clearly been dropping lately, so I'm going to take a break from the main board. I'll still post here. I plan to make a new layout before I return; it's been too long since I made something. | |||
|
Zem Permabanned. Flaming, trolling, reregistering. Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6230 days Last view: 6230 days |
| ||
| I only noticed this thread becuase Cy posted in it.
Instead of building on the discussion as it's proceeded, I'm going to pretend the first post is still a virgin and take it from there. First off:
The phrase "narrow minded" is interesting there. You seem to be implying that setting up rules for a community is an outdated notion? Are there some hot fresh "thinking outside the box" solutions for managing a community? Unfortunately, you don't explain this further; I guess you just wanted to get in a snide dig on the concept of "rules." You're right, even those in power break the rules. Whatever the definition of 'flaming,' it's been broken by some staff members here. This is a fact. Let's see if it matters.
Another big assumption on my part here: it looks like some people were bashing Bush, you got upset, tried to invoke the "no flaming" rule, and got shut down? This controversy has come up before; it seems generally that what little protection the "no flaming" rule offers only extends to people on the forum. I say "little protection" because that rule is very vague and plenty of flaming goes on unpunished all the time, from staff members and regular members alike. It is true that oldbies get more preferential treatment than newbies. This is partially justifiable and partially not. I'll explain that later; let's continue.
This paragraph, though it doesn't contain any crippling mechanical errors, is horribly written. Lemme see if I can parse this. Okay, you think "No being stupid" should be enforced more. That's easy enogh. Uh... second sentence is confusing. I'm guessing you mean "for the sake of." So, for the benefit of experienced users and folks with clean records, this rule should be enforced more. I think that's what you're saying. Elated on. .....Okay, "elaborated on" makes sense there. I'll guess that's what you meant. Perhaps this should be elaborated on, rather than telling us what to do and what not to do? I would think telling us what to do and what not to do is a great way to clarify the rules. What are you saying here? All right, the last two sentences are easy enough to figure out. Now that I think I know what you're saying, I can try to respond. You think "no being stupid" should be enforced more, I got that (you said it twice). But then you said the rule should be clarified. Okay, so the rule should be clarified, and then enforced more? And if it should be enforced "for those of us who aren't new to the forum or don't have a history of being stupid," does that mean you think harsher action should be taken against newbies and people who do have a history of being stupid? If so, well, that makes sense, but it's largely the case already. And then, I guess, you say that people who mock stupid people are themselves stupid, and mods have done this, therefore those mods are stupid. I'm not sure I see quite what you're saying here; maybe you could explain it further. Rephrase it. Don't try to write above your level.
Well, this rule is unclear. Your writing is unclear. I don't feel like working my way through this and I don't really care about the state of the ROM hacking forums, so I'll skip this one.
This is fairly straightforward. Thanks for getting your thoughts straight before writing this paragraph.
All right, basically you're saying the board's administrators are immature. This isn't a response to your writing, this is a response to the content of your post, but I can't refrain from pointing out along the way how difficult it is to discern what you're actually trying to say.
I don't know what the fuck point you're trying to get across here. Alls I got out of this paragraph was: -online community = getaway from life -sometimes my life is unenjoyable -I learn from my mistakes It's obvious you're trying to say other things in this paragraph, but I'm sorry, I can't figure out what they are. I'm not exaggerating here; I couldn't figure out any of the opinions and/or facts that you were trying to present.
Okay, finally we get to what appears to be your main point. First off, there's no three-strike rule here, really, no matter what anyone says. So, that's irrelevant. Second, breeding? What? Fails? Where? Third... okay, this is important. This is an online community. It is analogous to a real-life community. It is not analogous to a person's life or country. In a real-life community, there are rules for being a member, whether explicitly stated or not. If you disobey the rules enough, you are no longer allowed to be a member of that community. Do you agree that it's a reasonable system, for a community? If not, I guess further discussion is warranted. But that means you have beef with the whole concept of a community, not an Internet message board specifically. It sounds to me like what you really have beef with is the fact that the rules are vague and enforced inconsistently. If that's true, then just fucking say it, please. If not, say whatever you actually mean. Either way, you didn't say much in this post. I'll assume I'm right, so here's my rebuttal. The rules are vague. The rules, as written, are amazingly, horribly, incomprehensibly vague. This is true. However, if you spend a small amount of time here, it's very easy to see where the line is and how to avoid crossing it. This is a small community, so the rules can easily be enforced on a case-by-case basis. And they are. Let's talk about flaming: if you don't want to get in trouble, don't flame. That's easy. So in the case of flaming, if you follow the rules in the FAQ ("no flaming") you won't run into any problems. However, you notice that some people can flame and get away with it. After a while it becomes apparent that the rules, as given, outline a sort of "safe zone" where you can act without worry, but it also becomes apparent that it's possible to thrive outside this safe zone. The area outside the safe zone is not adequately described: you venture there at your own risk. This is where unbanned flamers dwell. They get a gut feeling for what might get them banned, and they disobey the letter of the law without getting banned. Of course, there are no guarentees out there, and you can't blame anyone but yourself for getting banned, because you were disobeying the rules. I'm not describing anything you're unfamiliar with. I'm just pointing out that disobeying the rules is not an automatic ban (despite what anyone may say), but that you do so at your own risk. Okay, I'm getting bored, so I'm just gonna stop there. Bite me. Maybe I'll come back and finish what I was saying later. edit: a couple clarifications (edited by Zem on 03-19-06 10:34 PM) |
|||
|
Zem Permabanned. Flaming, trolling, reregistering. Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6230 days Last view: 6230 days |
| ||
| I haven't followed the whole thread, so maybe someone said this already, but we haven't "gotten past" or "overcome" the notion of survival of the fittest.
People who are most likely to reproduce (and are able to have their offspring survive to do the same) will pass on their genes. There it is, in its simplest form. The way society functions now, this is probably not "the strongest" or even "the smartest," although the strongest and the smartest would of course gain some advantages. But some people will be better than others at successfully cultivating their genes, and that will cause (is causing) the gene pool to trend towards those attributes. I've read a couple of things stating "Scientists think people may evolve to have only four toes!" This is stupid. I think the slight energy gain from having two fewer toes would be far outweighed by a somewhat smaller chance to reproduce. That's the kind of misinformation that makes people think humans have "surpassed" evolution (not that anyone suggested that here). |
|||
|
Zem Permabanned. Flaming, trolling, reregistering. Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6230 days Last view: 6230 days |
| ||
| If they ever contain images like the ads at the bottom sometimes do (or did?) I'm blocking them.
Text ads, I can ignore. |
|||
|
Zem Permabanned. Flaming, trolling, reregistering. Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6230 days Last view: 6230 days |
| ||
| Hi new mod | |||
|
Zem Permabanned. Flaming, trolling, reregistering. Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6230 days Last view: 6230 days |
| ||
| Unknown Entity's Ambush crits you for 1724.
Unknown Entity crits you for 831. Unknown Entity's Sinister Strike crits you for 1320. You die. |
|||
|
Zem Permabanned. Flaming, trolling, reregistering. Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6230 days Last view: 6230 days |
| ||
| T ZACHIO I WAS THAT BLENDER
**DRAMA** |
|||
|
Zem Permabanned. Flaming, trolling, reregistering. Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6230 days Last view: 6230 days |
| ||
| I like Primus.
A lot. But citing song lyrics as proof of your arguments is fucking retarded. |
|||
|
Zem Permabanned. Flaming, trolling, reregistering. Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6230 days Last view: 6230 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Skyon This is a truly excellent post. (edited by Grey on 03-24-06 04:38 PM) |
|||
|
Zem Permabanned. Flaming, trolling, reregistering. Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6230 days Last view: 6230 days |
| ||
Originally posted by C'aos You're lucky to have killed VC, like 90% of the pickup groups for that instance contain one or more failures who never learn how not to wipe the party. For some reason this is less the case for RFC on the horde side. Though VC may be easier now that it's probably a majority of alts at that level |
|||
|
Zem Permabanned. Flaming, trolling, reregistering. Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6230 days Last view: 6230 days |
| ||
| don't forget new content ("LOL BLIZZ SUX" remarks aside) | |||
|
Zem Permabanned. Flaming, trolling, reregistering. Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6230 days Last view: 6230 days |
| ||
Originally posted by NEONswift Hmm, I thought they just looked more like the dungeons from Link's Awakening and LTTP. |
|||
|
Zem Permabanned. Flaming, trolling, reregistering. Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6230 days Last view: 6230 days |
| ||
| I was thinking maybe cowbell | |||
|
Zem Permabanned. Flaming, trolling, reregistering. Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6230 days Last view: 6230 days |
| ||
| why even try to pretend you'll be able to play on patch day
has it ever worked |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Zem |